# Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?



## Jenna

If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?  If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?  If so, thank you.  If not, can I ask please, why not?  And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?

I am happy to share my faith with anyone who is interested in sharing.  I have also encountered many times in many situations, non-theists who are, in my experience, more than happy to state their position and more than open to discuss more widely, yet not in all cases would I encounter a similar expression of interest among those I know have a personal religious faith.  Beyond the fact that it is just me, or my approach, are there reasons why those having a personal faith are reluctant to share the benefits their faith brings to them?  Is faith and sharing faith not a good thing?  Why is there reticence?  I have even sensed embarrassment I think.  I do not always understand.  My faith makes exhortation to connect and to attempt to show by example and to encourage others to see the benefits of that faith.  Why is it not the same for everyone in their personal faiths?  Why do some hide their faith?  

Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## Cyriacus

Now...



Jenna said:


> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?
> 
> *I have no problem telling anyone My standing. It isnt exactly a state secret.*
> 
> If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?
> 
> *Faith in a Religion, in terms of its benefit to Your Life, is similar to the determination of a people at War, in Defense of Their Livelyhood. Belief can be a strong influence, in and of that it gives some people determination, where They otherwise wouldnt.*
> 
> If so, thank you. If not, can I ask please, why not? And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?
> 
> *I have no idea what Id attribute Myself to.
> Not, I dont know what I believe. I mean, We cannot know for sure one way or another if any Faith is accurate. Therefore, I choose to believe its possible. I do not disbelieve it. I also dont believe in any particular Faith.
> I guess if I had to pick one, the Norse had it pretty good *
> 
> I am happy to share my faith with anyone who is interested in sharing.
> 
> *The only reason I could see for someone not wanting to, is preconceptions. For example, some people might be afraid of stating Themself as a follower of Islam, for fear of being attributed to certain groups. Not so much now, but at one point. And that kind of concern doesnt disappear with the risk.*
> 
> I have also encountered many times in many situations, non-theists who are, in my experience, more than happy to state their position and more than open to discuss more widely, yet not in all cases would I encounter a similar expression of interest among those I know have a personal religious faith. Beyond the fact that it is just me, or my approach, are there reasons why those having a personal faith are reluctant to share the benefits their faith brings to them?
> 
> *Thatd be subjective to the Individual.*
> 
> Is faith and sharing faith not a good thing?
> 
> *Crusades.*
> 
> Why is there reticence? I have even sensed embarrassment I think.
> 
> *Some people are unsure of Themselves, and tend to just have a belief system for the sake of having one, or just cant back up having one with reasons other than "I do". Which is fine. But it can make some folks uncomfortable.*
> 
> I do not always understand. My faith makes exhortation to connect and to attempt to show by example and to encourage others to see the benefits of that faith. Why is it not the same for everyone in their personal faiths? Why do some hide their faith?
> 
> *Better question: Why are some faiths subtle, or not put out for the world to see? Because alot of people are insecure, and they often end up in groups which reflect that, and nourish it enough to give them structure.*
> 
> Thank you for your contribution.



Its a complex topic. Im trying not to go into too much depth, and am favoring observations over opinions, since stating opinions on other Religions can sometimes lead to some bitterness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Jenna said:


> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?



Roman Catholic.



> If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?



I don't give it a lot of thought.  It's just what I am.  When I was younger, I was not able to compartmentalize the fundamental dichotomy between what religion teaches and how the universe appears to work.  I went on a personal spiritual quest that lasted 20 years.  I studied lots of other religions and even no religion at all.  I went on Vision Quests of my own devising, I did shamanic drumming and ritual dancing, I visited temples and churches and Kingdom Halls and synagogues.  I mostly referred to myself as a Wiccan for quite a while.  In the end, I returned to Roman Catholicism, the religion of my birth and upbringing.  It's got a lot of problems, but I've learned to compartmentalize them.  I can believe in evolution and Creationism at the same time; it's not that hard to believe (impossible to explain, but not impossible to believe).  Why Roman Catholic?  I guess because it's where I feel comfortable and safe and at peace.  Being part of the Mass is one of the most powerful spiritual experiences I've ever felt personally; and for me, it is fulfilling.



> If so, thank you.  If not, can I ask please, why not?  And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?
> 
> I am happy to share my faith with anyone who is interested in sharing.  I have also encountered many times in many situations, non-theists who are, in my experience, more than happy to state their position and more than open to discuss more widely, yet not in all cases would I encounter a similar expression of interest among those I know have a personal religious faith.  Beyond the fact that it is just me, or my approach, are there reasons why those having a personal faith are reluctant to share the benefits their faith brings to them?  Is faith and sharing faith not a good thing?  Why is there reticence?  I have even sensed embarrassment I think.  I do not always understand.  My faith makes exhortation to connect and to attempt to show by example and to encourage others to see the benefits of that faith.  Why is it not the same for everyone in their personal faiths?  Why do some hide their faith?
> 
> Thank you for your contribution.



I suspect people hide their faith because they fear ridicule and in some cases, actual danger.

I have no problem with agnostics, and not much of a problem with atheists; I even agree with them on many things, including that the real facts are unknown and probably unknowable, that faith is just not enough for some people and that's OK, and so on.  However, a (to me) distressing number of so-called atheists are actually either anti-religion or anti-Christian (some are more specifically anti-Catholic).  It's not just that they do not believe, they want and actively work to denigrate, demean, and insult people of faith.  They want religion expunged from the world, they see it as evil, dangerous, and the root of all evil.  They have set themselves up not just to be anti-religion for themselves, but to destroy my faith and even make it illegal for me to practice as I wish, including voting for laws that fit my concepts of how society should function.  As I said, I have no problems with atheists per se; but I have a huge problem with people who set themselves up to be my enemy because I am Catholic.  If they choose that path, then I will oblige them.  People who set out to destroy religion should not be surprised to find I don't stand around and take it passively.


----------



## oftheherd1

Jenna said:


> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing? If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing? If so, thank you. If not, can I ask please, why not? And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?
> 
> *I am a Christian. My faith brings me happiness most often. It also brings me assurance of salvation. That is probably most important. I believe in Heaven and hell, and don't want to be in hell, nor will I.
> *
> I am happy to share my faith with anyone who is interested in sharing. I have also encountered many times in many situations, non-theists who are, in my experience, more than happy to state their position and more than open to discuss more widely, yet not in all cases would I encounter a similar expression of interest among those I know have a personal religious faith. Beyond the fact that it is just me, or my approach, are there reasons why those having a personal faith are reluctant to share the benefits their faith brings to them? Is faith and sharing faith not a good thing? Why is there reticence? I have even sensed embarrassment I think. I do not always understand. My faith makes exhortation to connect and to attempt to show by example and to encourage others to see the benefits of that faith. Why is it not the same for everyone in their personal faiths? Why do some hide their faith?
> 
> *I have also puzzled over the same questions about people. I do try to talk to people about my religious beliefs. I try to tell them how they might be saved. I am commanded to do so by the Bible. I also happen to believe it is a good thing to be saved, and think I should tell others about it.  I do try to do it with Christian love. I do not want to be confrontational. I do not want to simply win arguments. I want to convince them to accept salvation and serve God. Some people are willing to talk about it, others not. Why?
> 
> I think different people have different reasons. But I suspect some may have had people talk to them who became confrontational, or arrogant, or otherwise try to demand as opposed to trying to persuade. I think some fear talking about it because they want to put off discussing it in the hope they can delay the inevitable. Others have a faith of their own, but may not know how to defend it, and fear being made to look foolish, or inclined to change something they don't want to change.
> 
> Bottom line though, is that most of those I have encountered who don't want to discuss it, by their demeanor make me feel they are afraid of discussing it in some way. The reasons I can only guess at, since those I have encountered don't want to discuss their reasons for not discussing it either.
> 
> As to having and sharing my faith, I think it is a good thing. It is for me. Reticence to share faith? Well, it isn't always easy. Some people can become quite unfriendly when I try to tell them about my faith. I have had people try to belittle me, or get angry at me, or try to seem superior to me. Some have refused to have anything to do with me. I am commanded to share my belief, but not to force anyone to change. That is basically impossible anyway. I do try to convince, but try to be very careful to do it in a way that will not turn anyone off to ever accepting my beliefs. To me, that would be almost as bad as not telling them in the first place.
> 
> I don't want to sound like I try to tell everyone I encounter. I probably should, but I don't. For one thing, I cannot do it where I work. I owe 8 hours of work to my employer. For another, I am just not as bold as I would like to be. But I try as often as I think there is an opportunity, and I find myself bold enough.
> *
> Thank you for your contribution.



I hope it has been a contribution to your question.


----------



## WC_lun

I'm Buhdhist.  I grew up in a Methodist family, but had trouble reconciling some of the church beliefs with my personal beliefs.  I don't have a problem with anyone's faith or religion.  The only times I do have issue is when someone wants to denigrate what I believe or use thier own faith as an excuse for hate.  

Religion is a very powerful and in some cases private thing.  No one wants to be ridiculed for thier beliefs.  Nor do they normally want to be seen as the loud mouth telling everyone else what to believe.  It is much easier just to remain quiet.


----------



## Instructor

Jenna said:


> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?
> 
> *I am a born again Christian in the Evangelical/Pentecostal vein.
> *
> If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?  If so, thank you.  If not, can I ask please, why not?  And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?
> 
> *My faith brings me everything I have love, happiness, joy, forgiveness, family, everything.  I owe it all to God.
> *
> I am happy to share my faith with anyone who is interested in sharing.  I have also encountered many times in many situations, non-theists who are, in my experience, more than happy to state their position and more than open to discuss more widely, yet not in all cases would I encounter a similar expression of interest among those I know have a personal religious faith.
> 
> *Sad but true.  Many have been ridiculed for their faith, it's terrible.  I once had a supervisor that made it his goal in life to ruin me simply because I was a Christian.  I still prayed for him privately though.
> *
> Beyond the fact that it is just me, or my approach, are there reasons why those having a personal faith are reluctant to share the benefits their faith brings to them?
> 
> *I share a lot here on the forum but in person I am kind of a shy introverted person.  I don't share much with others.  I do offer to pray for people if they are suffering.  I sometimes invite people to go to church with me if they mention they are looking.  My work environment has certain rules regarding sharing this sort of thing so I have to use quite a bit of tact.
> *
> Is faith and sharing faith not a good thing?  Why is there reticence?  I have even sensed embarrassment I think.  I do not always understand.  My faith makes exhortation to connect and to attempt to show by example and to encourage others to see the benefits of that faith.  Why is it not the same for everyone in their personal faiths?  Why do some hide their faith?
> 
> *It used to be in this country that if you weren't some variety of Christian you were considered strange.  Nowadays pretty much everybody is accepted.  I think the Muslims have suffered quite a bit since terrorism came into vogue.  Nowadays it seems like Christians are often the target of comedy on television and in film.  We are often portrayed in a bad light.  It always rubs me the wrong way when Christians are portrayed as simple minded, crazy, or even evil.
> *
> Thank you for your contribution.



*Thanks for giving me an oppurtunity to speak about my faith. *


----------



## Empty Hands

I have no religious faith.  You'll forgive me if I don't pile on about how awful the scornful atheists are, when everyone from my family to society at large look down on me for it.  You're 90-95% of the population, a handful of loudmouth scornful atheists won't harm you.

I don't like to share in my public life for the most part, until I know and trust the person very well, because of the potential consequences.  My wife just doesn't get that.  She will casually tell brand new acquaintances that I am an atheist, and then gets upset with *me *when I ask her not to.  I just never know how someone is going to react, and what negative consequences it can have.  I'm fortunate in my choice of profession and location that religious intolerance is rarely an issue.

As for why, I just don't have the belief.  And I have no reason *to *have the belief.  By neither internal conviction nor evidence.  You do?  Cool, I have no problem with that.  Nearly everyone I care for and love is a theist.  But that doesn't somehow make their beliefs rational or defensible.  But neither does it make them a bad person.  I've found that people who are bad twist their religion along with it, and good people do good things with their religion.  I doubt that religion can make one good or bad - although it does subject good people to unnecessary pain.


----------



## Sukerkin

Bill Mattocks said:


> They want religion expunged from the world, they see it as evil, dangerous, <snip>



Without the fiery words after it, this is me.  

I don't want the following to be seen as an attempt to antagonise or belittle or any other such negative thing.  It is just my opinion and, as such, carries as much/little weight as the readers wish to give it.  I thought it might give flavour to have an entry from the non-theist rationalists.

Of course, my wish for humanity to leave religion behind would have to be in an ideal world where people wouldn't just find some other excuse to be horrible to those that don't think the same about something unprovable and likely fictitious (not certainly so, of course, as that for which no proof is asked cannot be verified as true or false).  

So that wish to see removed that quirk of evolution that makes some of us believe in the supernatural is a rather fruitless one.  I've noted before that it is possible that this tendency to sanctification is tied to the same abilities that make us able to create, fantacise and plan for the future; so, on reflection, getting rid of it might not be such a great idea for the species.

BillM and Seasoned and Jenna are fine examples of religious minded people who have fastened on to the one truly salient fact about religion that matters - it's not about God (or whatever mythos followed) or Scripture, it's about yourself as a human being.  Having a personal relationship with God is a useful cypher for exploring and codifying your sense of what makes a moral being.  

In such a context it is irrelevant that God does not exist (or does) - the person exists and seeks to improve their own spiritual enlightenment.  In my case I seek that alongside a fascination with the arcane intricacies of the universe, with it's vastness and beautiful complexity.  So, as I said to Seasoned yesterday, I suppose if I do have a 'faith' it is mathematics :lol:.


----------



## Sukerkin

Very well expressed, *EH* - much better than I did.  My excuse is that I've just spent all day with a commissioning panel trying to make 2 + 2 = 3 and we're all shaking a chicken at the blue moon that a transformer at the local substations doesn't go phoom in the next six months or Northampton goes dark .


----------



## Tez3

With all due respect the answers given by a couple of posters is the reason many of us don't care to 'share' our faith or religion. I understand that people are happy with their faith but what I don't understand is their need to tell us about it and try to convert us who aren't of their faith. I'm happy with what I am, it's my life but I understand perfectly why it's not for everyone and never in a million years would I feel the need to 'spread' or share what I believe with anyone else. I understand totally why Empty Hands wants to keep his thoughts to himself. I don't think anyone not of a specific faith needs to be saved and I take umbrage I'm afraid when people want to 'share' their religious beliefs with me and 'save me' I find that insulting. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever, everyone is fine by me, to each their own and I really wish it would stay that way. I really really don't want people praying for me, kind though the intention may be, it's arrogant all the same. I do sometimes have moments of amusements when certain Christians try to convert me to their religion from mine which was the same as their Jesus'. If their messiah came back today do you think he would go to a church or a shul to pray? As he was a rebbe I'm betting he'd make straight for the shul.
I'm sorry if people think that's confrontational but the OP asked why we wouldn't like to 'share', it's simply I think that many of us don't feel a need to do this modern thing of 'sharing'. My shift partner is a Hindu and likewise as an 'old' religion I don't think they have this need to 'share' either, I've found that most people are happy with what they believe in so should be left alone.


----------



## Jenna

Thank you all so very very much for such wonderful positive testimonies.  

I think I am a little perturbed to have to call it brave and because to suggest it is brave or requires courage to explain to someone something that we do that brings us happiness (and is free for all) seems counterintuitive.  Nevertheless, I think in context of stating one's faith in public can surely be described as brave.  I am very grateful to have your contributions. 

I am Christian in a Pentecostal tradition having come from an Orthodox Catholic background stemming back to where I am originally from.  I have good relationships with very moderate Muslim friends.  I feel it is part of my faith to respect the beliefs and faiths of others.




Cyriacus said:


> Faith in a Religion, in terms of its benefit to Your Life, is similar to the determination of a people at War, in Defense of Their Livelyhood. Belief can be a strong influence, in and of that it gives some people determination, where They otherwise wouldnt.


Yes, I understand this analogy, thank you.  And have you given this analogy in the third person for a reason?  It is your personal faith I am interested in   I think you are correct, we cannot know anything for sure except what our faith has proven to us  And since you have not explicitly stated your faith, would I assume you are reticent for the aforementioned reasons?  Or have I misinterpreted what you have written?  I do appreciate your contribution and I am interested in hearing if you are so minded to share.  Thank you.





Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no problem with agnostics, and not much of a problem with atheists; I even agree with them on many things, including that the real facts are unknown and probably unknowable, that faith is just not enough for some people and that's OK, and so on. However, a (to me) distressing number of so-called atheists are actually either anti-religion or anti-Christian (some are more specifically anti-Catholic). It's not just that they do not believe, they want and actively work to denigrate, demean, and insult people of faith. They want religion expunged from the world, they see it as evil, dangerous, and the root of all evil. They have set themselves up not just to be anti-religion for themselves, but to destroy my faith and even make it illegal for me to practice as I wish, including voting for laws that fit my concepts of how society should function. As I said, I have no problems with atheists per se; but I have a huge problem with people who set themselves up to be my enemy because I am Catholic. If they choose that path, then I will oblige them. People who set out to destroy religion should not be surprised to find I don't stand around and take it passively.


I would wholly agree with this.  I understand the idea of religious contention which encourages some to hide their faith.  I think perhaps I am naive to suggest that the religion of another is a threat to my own any more than atheism bears that threat.  I am interested in discussion.  I am interested in diversity.  I am also wondering if the reason that many Christian faiths have a feeling of erosion from so many quarters) is partly because the Christian voice is so often quiet?  What do you think?  Is Christianity culpable for its own erosion because it values tolerance and a certain appeasement in the face of violence or the threat of violence?  Thank you very much for sharing so generously.





oftheherd1 said:


> I think different people have different reasons. But I suspect some may have had people talk to them who became confrontational, or arrogant, or otherwise try to demand as opposed to trying to persuade. I think some fear talking about it because they want to put off discussing it in the hope they can delay the inevitable. Others have a faith of their own, but may not know how to defend it, and fear being made to look foolish, or inclined to change something they don't want to change.


Yes I think these reasons are perfectly understandable.  I think the apparent requirement to defend one's faith against a metric that is not faith-based (or even that IS faith-based in a conversation like this) is certainly one of the reasons for such reticence.  I would say that not everyone is a competent orator or debater and but for me, the only argument I need is.. Because that is what I believe.  I do not need to have it proven.  I am not blind to evidence which others perceive as refutation.  Still, my faith is my faith and needs for me no justification beyond what I feel.  I wish I could instil that in everyone that had faith and but was self-conscious in any of the many ways when it came to sharing.

I think the idea of preaching inappropriately to those not willing to hear it is also at times foremost in the minds of people with a faith.  And I guess the global drive to proselytise is also offputting to some.  I think it is a shame that faiths compete with each other and that atheism further competes with those faiths also.  Is there a theoretical compromise to be had do you think?  Or will the strongest eventually defeat the weakest?





WC_lun said:


> I'm Buhdhist. I grew up in a Methodist family, but had trouble reconciling some of the church beliefs with my personal beliefs. I don't have a problem with anyone's faith or religion. The only times I do have issue is when someone wants to denigrate what I believe or use thier own faith as an excuse for hate.
> 
> Religion is a very powerful and in some cases private thing. No one wants to be ridiculed for thier beliefs. Nor do they normally want to be seen as the loud mouth telling everyone else what to believe. It is much easier just to remain quiet.


I very much appreciate your sharing.  Thank you!  Can I ask please why you think there is this derision or utilisation of the beliefs that someone has as a weapon against them?  Why is there derision when most if not all faiths have peace at their truest core?  

And do you feel there is a positive way to share your faith without falling into either of those categories - subject of ridicule / loudmouth preacher?  Thank you again.





Instructor said:


> Thanks for giving me an oppurtunity to speak about my faith.


Thank you for what you have shared.  I wonder can I ask please why do you think some are ridiculed for their faith?  Are some faiths (or is lack of faith) more "credible" and less apt to ridicule do you think?  And if so, why is that?





Empty Hands said:


> I have no religious faith. You'll forgive me if I don't pile on about how awful the scornful atheists are, when everyone from my family to society at large look down on me for it. You're 90-95% of the population, a handful of loudmouth scornful atheists won't harm you.
> 
> I don't like to share in my public life for the most part, until I know and trust the person very well, because of the potential consequences. My wife just doesn't get that. She will casually tell brand new acquaintances that I am an atheist, and then gets upset with me when I ask her not to. I just never know how someone is going to react, and what negative consequences it can have. I'm fortunate in my choice of profession and location that religious intolerance is rarely an issue.
> 
> As for why, I just don't have the belief. And I have no reason to have the belief. By neither internal conviction nor evidence. You do? Cool, I have no problem with that. Nearly everyone I care for and love is a theist. But that doesn't somehow make their beliefs rational or defensible. But neither does it make them a bad person. I've found that people who are bad twist their religion along with it, and good people do good things with their religion. I doubt that religion can make one good or bad - although it does subject good people to unnecessary pain.


Thank you for outlining your position.  I am grateful to have your opinion, I am sure I have said before, for me personally having whatever variant of faith or being atheist I would hope in an ideal world was no barrier to open discussion.  I appreciate though that in the real world, as you have eloquently explained, often never the twain shall meet.  Can I ask please do you think this antipathy is a reflection of a deliberate desire to remain ignorant?  Do you think theism is a threat to atheism (or rationality in a wider sense maybe)?  Do you think atheism is a threat to faith?  Thank you again for taking time to post.





Sukerkin said:


> So that wish to see removed that quirk of evolution that makes some of us believe in the supernatural is a rather fruitless one. I've noted before that it is possible that this tendency to sanctification is tied to the same abilities that make us able to create, fantacise and plan for the future; so, on reflection, getting rid of it might not be such a great idea for the species.


I appreciate you posting here Suke.  I wonder if you would mind me asking you a question?  I understand your antipathy for the notions held tight in religion and faith in deities and but I wonder you seem to be speaking in a very much first person narrative as if you have been in direct conflict with persons or bodies which gave rise to that antipathy.  Is this the case?  I think it is one thing to disagree with religious concepts using a metric of science, I have heard a deal of secondary anger also expressed within these kinds of discussions (the notable public face of atheism: Dawkins though not so much Hitchens before his passing) and was wondering if that was a reflection of frustration with religion and perceived religious impingements or is it based upon personal direct conflict?  I would be interested in your own experience.  Thank you again for posting your thoughts.





Tez3 said:


> With all due respect the answers given by a couple of posters is the reason many of us don't care to 'share' our faith or religion. I understand that people are happy with their faith but what I don't understand is their need to tell us about it and try to convert us who aren't of their faith. I'm happy with what I am, it's my life but I understand perfectly why it's not for everyone and never in a million years would I feel the need to 'spread' or share what I believe with anyone else. I understand totally why Empty Hands wants to keep his thoughts to himself. I don't think anyone not of a specific faith needs to be saved and I take umbrage I'm afraid when people want to 'share' their religious beliefs with me and 'save me' I find that insulting. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever, everyone is fine by me, to each their own and I really wish it would stay that way. I really really don't want people praying for me, kind though the intention may be, it's arrogant all the same. I do sometimes have moments of amusements when certain Christians try to convert me to their religion from mine which was the same as their Jesus'. If their messiah came back today do you think he would go to a church or a shul to pray? As he was a rebbe I'm betting he'd make straight for the shul.
> I'm sorry if people think that's confrontational but the OP asked why we wouldn't like to 'share', it's simply I think that many of us don't feel a need to do this modern thing of 'sharing'. My shift partner is a Hindu and likewise as an 'old' religion I don't think they have this need to 'share' either, I've found that most people are happy with what they believe in so should be left alone.


I am sorry that you are having an experience where someone has tried to coerce you into listening to what you are not interested in.  I can only say that is not something I would do intentionally.  In this thread, I am seeking to share with whomever of whichever faith, or lack of, seeks to share in discussion likewise.  If someone is not interested then that is perfectly fine.  It is not for me to be intrusive.  I hope you are not offended by me asking what I have asked in this thread?  I would be interested in hearing about what your personal faith brings to you and but I appreciate that you may not be inclined and I am grateful nevertheless for you having taken the time to outline your thoughts, thank you.


----------



## oftheherd1

Empty Hands said:


> I have no religious faith. You'll forgive me if I don't pile on about how awful the scornful atheists are, when everyone from my family to society at large look down on me for it. You're 90-95% of the population, a handful of loudmouth scornful atheists won't harm you.
> 
> *I think it unfortunate that people look down on you.  I could understand looking at your beliefs with sadness for you, but not from an attitude of superiority.   I don't anticipate being harmed by any atheist, including you sir.  I think you are wrong about believers in God being 90-95% of the population.  I wish it were so.  Do you have figures to back that up?
> *
> I don't like to share in my public life for the most part, until I know and trust the person very well, because of the potential consequences. My wife just doesn't get that. She will casually tell brand new acquaintances that I am an atheist, and then gets upset with *me *when I ask her not to. I just never know how someone is going to react, and what negative consequences it can have. I'm fortunate in my choice of profession and location that religious intolerance is rarely an issue.
> 
> *Perhaps she is hoping to get you to follow her religion, but has simply run out of reasons to convince you, and hopes the new acquaintance may follow up and bring out reasons to convince you?  I don't know that to be so, and am not sure I would say that is the most fruitful way to do so.  But it may simply indicate her concern for you.
> *
> As for why, I just don't have the belief. And I have no reason *to *have the belief. By neither internal conviction nor evidence. You do? Cool, I have no problem with that. Nearly everyone I care for and love is a theist. But that doesn't somehow make their beliefs rational or defensible. But neither does it make them a bad person. I've found that people who are bad twist their religion along with it, and good people do good things with their religion. *I doubt that religion can make one good or bad - although it does subject good people to unnecessary pain*.
> 
> *The underlined of the above is sadly, quite true.  And the religion claimed has little bearing.  As to the bolded, I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying sir, that religion makes all who follow a religion sad, and not following a religion makes those people happy?
> *



1


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Empty Hands said:


> I have no religious faith.  You'll forgive me if I don't pile on about how awful the scornful atheists are, when everyone from my family to society at large look down on me for it.  You're 90-95% of the population, a handful of loudmouth scornful atheists won't harm you.



I don't worry about the scorn of atheists; or anyone else for that matter.  I've got a pretty thick hide.  I only have an issue with those who would attempt to legally prohibit my ability to worship as I see fit, and live my life in a manner consistent with my religious beliefs; including voting for laws that reflect the kind of society I wish to live in.  I recognize that they are doing the same thing; they vote for laws that reflect the kind of society they want to live in; but as they are free to oppose my attempts, I reserve the right to do likewise.



> I don't like to share in my public life for the most part, until I know and trust the person very well, because of the potential consequences.  My wife just doesn't get that.  She will casually tell brand new acquaintances that I am an atheist, and then gets upset with *me *when I ask her not to.  I just never know how someone is going to react, and what negative consequences it can have.  I'm fortunate in my choice of profession and location that religious intolerance is rarely an issue.



I generally keep my beliefs to myself in public.  Discussion forums are a different matter for me; I really don't mind who knows my beliefs, and if they inform the issues I'm passionate about, there is good reason to explain what my purpose or motivation is.

I do not proselytize, although my faith says I am supposed to.  I just don't want to do it; others think it's rude and pushy and I can't disagree with them.  I also don't argue scripture; I've never seen any discussion about that which had a happy ending; not one.


----------



## Instructor

> Thank you for what you have shared.  I wonder can I ask please why do you think some are ridiculed for their faith?  Are some faiths (or is lack of faith) more "credible" and less apt to ridicule do you think?  And if so, why is that?



I honestly don't know Jenna.  I don't ridicule other people or their religions or the lack thereof.  Ultimately we are all here just trying to find our way in life.  I think some people deal with fear by tormenting others.  I think some people open themselves up to be tormented though I know not why.



> I really really don't want people praying for me, kind though the intention may be, it's arrogant all the same.



Often I pray for people without them ever knowing it's happening.  I don't foist my faith on people who aren't interested.  But privately I pray for them.  Sorry you feel that is arrogant.


----------



## Sukerkin

To misquote Obiwan Kenobi, your insight does you credit, Jenna.  

Aye, some part of the roots of the strength of my feelings on the negative aspects of religion and religious belief (there *are* positive aspects too) has been fed by my father.  Not that his faith has been leading him to do any evil, quite the reverse but because, since I was about fifteen, every time we speak we end up circling the same topic viz my lack of willingness to believe in a creator deity and his lack of willingness to stop trying to reconvert me.  

I have to be careful when I speak here on matters of religion because, as I am only human, all those decades of debate going over the same ground again and again have made me prone to speak in derisory terms - I cannot speak to my father that way and the pressure has to come out somewhere :lol:.  Not something I am proud of, I do confess .


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> With all due respect the answers given by a couple of posters is the reason many of us don't care to 'share' our faith or religion. I understand that people are happy with their faith but what I don't understand is their need to tell us about it and try to convert us who aren't of their faith. I'm happy with what I am, it's my life but I understand perfectly why it's not for everyone and never in a million years would I feel the need to 'spread' or share what I believe with anyone else. I understand totally why Empty Hands wants to keep his thoughts to himself. I don't think anyone not of a specific faith needs to be saved and I take umbrage I'm afraid when people want to 'share' their religious beliefs with me and 'save me' I find that insulting. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever, everyone is fine by me, to each their own and I really wish it would stay that way. I really really don't want people praying for me, kind though the intention may be, it's arrogant all the same. I do sometimes have moments of amusements when certain Christians try to convert me to their religion from mine which was the same as their Jesus'. If their messiah came back today do you think he would go to a church or a shul to pray? As he was a rebbe I'm betting he'd make straight for the shul.
> I'm sorry if people think that's confrontational but the OP asked why we wouldn't like to 'share', it's simply I think that many of us don't feel a need to do this modern thing of 'sharing'. My shift partner is a Hindu and likewise as an 'old' religion I don't think they have this need to 'share' either, I've found that most people are happy with what they believe in so should be left alone.




I would share my beliefs with you because the the Bible tells us to, and because I think it is such a good thing I want to share.  Do share your ideas about the good things about martial arts?  When you do so, is their ever an implication that others would benefit from studying martial arts?  I would not try to change you simply because I believe something and want to justify myself.  

I don't consider it arrogance to pray for someone.  It is intended for their good.  If you consider it otherwise, and I had occassion to pray for you, I guess I would learn to just not tell you.

My Bible tells me that when Jesus, the messiah, comes back the first time, He will come back in the air, to collect those saved.  My Bible doesn't tell me he will come to go to a church or any other place of worship.

The above reflect my beliefs, based on the Bible.  My Bible contains an Old and New Testament.  You or anyone else has a right to agree or disagree.  I will not belittle you for differences in belief.  Nor should anyone in my opinion.  

I would still exercise an opportunity to talk to you and try to convince you to my beliefs.  And respect your right to tell me you don't wish to discuss my beliefs.


----------



## Empty Hands

Jenna said:


> Thank you for outlining your position.  I am grateful to have your opinion, I am sure I have said before, for me personally having whatever variant of faith or being atheist I would hope in an ideal world was no barrier to open discussion.  I appreciate though that in the real world, as you have eloquently explained, often never the twain shall meet.  Can I ask please do you think this antipathy is a reflection of a deliberate desire to remain ignorant?  Do you think theism is a threat to atheism (or rationality in a wider sense maybe)?  Do you think atheism is a threat to faith?  Thank you again for taking time to post.



Thanks Jenna, I've always appreciated your approach to this subject.

I've met a good number of religious people both online and off that have no issue debating their faith or the existence of God.  However, some do not, not at all.  I do not think that atheism is necessarily a threat to faith, but i think it nonetheless is a threat for some people.  People who are insecure in their faith, or who have based their faith on certain "rocks" like the inerrancy of scripture or Young Earth Creationism are particularly vulnerable.  The presence of counter-arguments that undercut their "rocks", or simply the presence of people who do not believe as they do, provokes insecurity and a harsh reaction.  I think that some people also view their faith in very personal, emotional terms.  People who then argue against their faith are not a threat as such, but are attacking something personal and close, which provokes a reaction.  And as I said, plenty of believers have no problem at all with the debate.

As for the other way around, I do not think theism is a threat to atheism.  The harsh reactions from atheists are mostly a reaction to experiences they have had, and prevailing cultural attitudes.  It will probably calm down quite a bit with time as acceptance improves, just as it has for most of Europe.


----------



## Instructor

Empty Hands said:


> Thanks Jenna, I've always appreciated your approach to this subject.
> 
> I've met a good number of religious people both online and off that have no issue debating their faith or the existence of God.  However, some do not, not at all.  I do not think that atheism is necessarily a threat to faith, but i think it nonetheless is a threat for some people.  People who are insecure in their faith, or who have based their faith on certain "rocks" like the inerrancy of scripture or Young Earth Creationism are particularly vulnerable.  The presence of counter-arguments that undercut their "rocks", or simply the presence of people who do not believe as they do, provokes insecurity and a harsh reaction.  I think that some people also view their faith in very personal, emotional terms.  People who then argue against their faith are not a threat as such, but are attacking something personal and close, which provokes a reaction.  And as I said, plenty of believers have no problem at all with the debate.
> 
> As for the other way around, I do not think theism is a threat to atheism.  The harsh reactions from atheists are mostly a reaction to experiences they have had, and prevailing cultural attitudes.  It will probably calm down quite a bit with time as acceptance improves, just as it has for most of Europe.



With respect to you and your beliefs Empty Hands I believe the only theat an atheist poses is to themselves.


----------



## oftheherd1

Jenna said:


> ...
> 
> Yes I think these reasons are perfectly understandable. I think the apparent requirement to defend one's faith against a metric that is not faith-based (or even that IS faith-based in a conversation like this) is certainly one of the reasons for such reticence. I would say that not everyone is a competent orator or debater and but for me, the only argument I need is.. Because that is what I believe. I do not need to have it proven. I am not blind to evidence which others perceive as refutation. Still, my faith is my faith and needs for me no justification beyond what I feel. I wish I could instil that in everyone that had faith and but was self-conscious in any of the many ways when it came to sharing.
> 
> I think the idea of preaching inappropriately to those not willing to hear it is also at times foremost in the minds of people with a faith. And I guess the global drive to proselytise is also offputting to some. I think it is a shame that faiths compete with each other and that atheism further competes with those faiths also. *Is there a theoretical compromise to be had do you think? Or will the strongest eventually defeat the weakest?*
> 
> .



I don't think Christians should compromise with other religions.  Nor do I think we should be antagonistic in attempting to win others to Christ.  If others are antagonistic towards us, we should not return antagonism for antagonism.  We should either continue to try to show them the way to salvation with love, or just leave them alone in their belief.  If you believe the Bible, the strongest will eventially win.  That would be Christ and His church.  But the battle will be apocalyptic.  ;-)


----------



## Empty Hands

oftheherd1 said:


> *I think it unfortunate that people look down on you.  I could  understand looking at your beliefs with sadness for you, but not from an  attitude of superiority.   I don't anticipate being harmed by any  atheist, including you sir.  I think you are wrong about believers in  God being 90-95% of the population.  I wish it were so.  Do you have  figures to back that up?*



Well, I appreciate that.  I understand what you mean and where you are coming from.  As for the numbers, according to Pew, 78.4% of adults identify as Christian, 4.7% as other religions, and 16.1% as "unaffiliated."  Of that group, 1.6% atheist, 2.4% agnostic, and 6.3% "secular unaffiliated."  So at best, you have 10.3% of the population that identify as potentially without belief.



oftheherd1 said:


> *Perhaps she is hoping to get you to follow her religion, but has  simply run out of reasons to convince you, and hopes the new  acquaintance may follow up and bring out reasons to convince you?  I  don't know that to be so, and am not sure I would say that is the most  fruitful way to do so.  But it may simply indicate her concern for you.*



This mirrors my own thoughts.  Although as you said, not the "most fruitful" way to go about it.  I'm mostly concerned about potential fallout.


oftheherd1 said:


> *The underlined of the above is sadly, quite true.  And the religion  claimed has little bearing.  As to the bolded, I'm not sure I  understand.  Are you saying sir, that religion makes all who follow a  religion sad, and not following a religion makes those people happy?*



No, I think religion makes some people quite happy.  What I mean is that various religious strictures and beliefs bring some good people great pain.  Take, for example, a believer growing up gay in a household that teaches that homosexuality is wrong and immoral.  Such a believer experiences pain in themselves from believing that what they are is wrong and they cannot change it, no matter how they try, and they experience pain if they come out as gay to those around him or her, who condemn and exclude.  There are many real stories like this from gay people, I'm not just making up hypotheticals.  Or a believer who scourges themselves mentally for not being able to live up to the strictures of their religion, which often is an impossible task.  Or a woman believer who is taught that she must submit in meekness and bear children, when what would make her happy is a career and independence.  And so on.  This pain is not necessary.


----------



## Empty Hands

Instructor said:


> With respect to you and your beliefs Empty Hands I believe the only theat an atheist poses is to themselves.



How so?  And if that is true, why such a strong and angry reaction to atheist arguments?


----------



## Tez3

Jenna, personally I've had a great deal more than one experience of people trying to convert me, and we have here an organisation dedicated to just that act called Jews for Jesus, they target Jewish schools, Jewish old people's homes and even places of worship. Historically well, there's few Christian organisations who haven't tried to convert us at one time or another, one reason I'm happy with atheists is that they don't try to convert me!

Instructor, I really, really don't want anyone praying for me, it is arrogant to be honest if you are praying to the diety of my religion who you've subsumed in your beliefs. I tend to think it's one of those things that can come across as patronising 'I'll pray for you'. why? do you think I can't talk to G-d or that I may not say the 'right' things or only certain people are listened to? I'm not being confrontational, I actually do find it a bit disturbing. I do realise there can be kindness in the intent but it's unnecessary to do this. I think this is one of the things that atheists may find religious people annoying is this attitude of benificence they can radiate when trying to convert someone, it can be also be an air of superiority. One thing we as Jews do believe is that G-d made us as He wanted us, so if someone is another religion or of no religion that's how it's supposed to be so one shouldn't go against what G-d intended!


----------



## Tez3

Empty Hands said:


> How so? And if that is true, why such a strong and angry reaction to atheist arguments?



Exactly! I see no threat to anyone from being an atheist, it harms no one least of all the atheist. I don't even see them as wrong, it's not for me but it doesn't make me the one who's right, it's only right for me.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think Christians should compromise with other religions. Nor do I think we should be antagonistic in attempting to win others to Christ. If others are antagonistic towards us, we should not return antagonism for antagonism. We should either continue to try to show them the way to salvation with love, or just leave them alone in their belief. If you believe the Bible, the strongest will eventially win. That would be Christ and His church. But the battle will be apocalyptic. ;-)



Well it was our 'Bible' first and it's our G-d you worship so perhaps the Jews are the strongest? You may need to brush up on your kosher cooking and start listening to your mothers! 

Seriously though for a minute, Jesus if he came back would be an Orthodox Jew still, so how would that change or colour your beliefs? he kept all the High Holidays, ate kosher and was a Rabbi, everything he said was already in what you call the Old Testament, he was a Jew through and through. His non Jewish followers may have taken over and changed things but he would still worship in a shul rather than a church surely.


----------



## CanuckMA

I'm an Orthodox Jew. My faith is part of my life. Everything I do is imbued by my faith. And I can't hide it. The kipa is a dead give away. I came to it after a secular upbrigning. Tez had put it quite eloquently, as usual. I also come at the 'love' of Xtians from a different angle. I grew up in the French neighbourhoods of Montreal during the 60s and 70s. I went to public school, that meant Catholic school. I learned very quickly to hide my identity. I'm fortunate to have a 'generic' name. Easter was not a fun time for me. Filled with the "Jews killed Jesus" rethoric. 


I have reached the point where I've had it up to here with Xtians trying to argue the meaning of MY sacred texts. I'm sorry, but if you can't read the original language, you don't really know what it says.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I've long said my path was a long and winding one.  I grew up Episcopal. Went agnostic in high school, spent a little time following Lavey, became Born Again, decided I got it right the first time and 'back slid', heard the Call of the Goddess, then decided that pondering The Way was what was needed to fix my Confusian. But living in the cold north-east I aimed for warmer climates so hitched a ride with Apollo on his charriot stopping off to walk along the Nile with Isis, Anubis and Bast.  But I was called eastward again to Dance with Shivah. Now I find that No Mind is a pleasing thought while I seek Inner Wisdom. Soon I'll move along the path again, where too I don't know, but regardless I know I will continue to grow as I Walk.

Along the way I've met many good people, had many a deep discussion and heated argument.  I've read more scripture, from more dead cultures that I've read Star Trek novels, and I have 2 book cases of those.  

My thinking is balanced by logic, some say heresy, some say fantasy. I don't believe that any one religion is correct. I think all are right, for some, but none right for all. A world as diverse as ours couldn't have any one religion be correct any more than we have 1 tree or 1 flower. We just are.

My personal experiences, which I share with few in detail, tell me that there is something out there. But it's beyond our ability to understand right now, that 'we will understand when we get there'.  

If you wish to pray for me, I am not offended. If you wish to 'send positive energy', regardless of it's form, it's always appreciated.  That someone takes the time to think of me, is always warming. If they take the time to curse me, I know I'm winning. 

An Ye Harm None, Do As Ye Wish.

Namaste.

:asian:


----------



## Jenna

*@Tez3* and *@CanuckMA*,

All I know is that I have a limited exposure to the Jewish faith and *I* would be interested in hearing and learning more of the positive aspects of your faith.  I am sure there are a great many.

I can only speak for myself and but I have never seen sense in trying to pull the rug of faith from under the feet of someone and I am sorry that you have been at the pointed end of unpleasantness.  

I would be grateful if only for me that you would share some of the good things that your faith has given you as it is a testament to you and how you live your lives through your faith and is an example to everyone else.  That is all I am interested in.  I am sad when people are angry when talking of their faith or their atheism.  I am sorry if this thread seems flippant or trivial.  I only seek to share something positive that each of us has in our faith and would be happy if you felt inclined to explain the good things that your faith brings to you in your life.  And but I understand that we are all different.  I know not everyone is like me in these things.  Sometimes I feel naive when I post a thread like this and look back and see a wake of anger behind.  I understand this.  I hope you are both well.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I would share my beliefs with you because the the Bible tells us to, and because I think it is such a good thing I want to share
> Do share your ideas about the good things about martial arts? When you do so, is their ever an implication that others would benefit from studying martial arts? I would not try to change you simply because I believe something and want to justify myself.
> 
> I don't consider it arrogance to pray for someone. It is intended for their good. If you consider it otherwise, and I had occassion to pray for you, I guess I would learn to just not tell you.
> 
> My Bible tells me that when Jesus, the messiah, comes back the first time, He will come back in the air, to collect those saved. My Bible doesn't tell me he will come to go to a church or any other place of worship.
> 
> The above reflect my beliefs, based on the Bible. My Bible contains an Old and New Testament. You or anyone else has a right to agree or disagree. I will not belittle you for differences in belief. Nor should anyone in my opinion.
> 
> I would still exercise an opportunity to talk to you and try to convince you to my beliefs. And respect your right to tell me you don't wish to discuss my beliefs.




How can you share something with me you took from us in the first place? What you think of as the Old Testament is our texts, our writings, our history. When you read about characters in your Bible are they your ancestors? No, they are mine. You follow the teachings of a Jew, a practising and what would be an Orthodox one in this day and age. The G-d you worship is the G-d of the Hebrews, of the Jews so why pray for me to Him? Jesus said nothing that wasn't in the 'Old Testament' not every what he said on the cross, he believed what we believe and that includes what happens at the end of the world.

Now I'll happily concede that as Jews we may be totally wrong but if we are so are you because you have purloined someone elses G-d and texts, mixed them up a bit and now declaim them as being the only truth. It may be *A* truth but certainly isn't the only one so yes I do have the right to disgree because you have bastardised my religion and that of the man you follow, it's the latter that is the most ironic when you say you want to convert us. 

Like Canuck I get prickly at this time of year coming up to Easter, same reasons and every reason not to look at those who wish us to convert to this 'born again' movement with any love. doing things for 'your own good' is downright patronising.

I would say if you are going to obey the 'Bible' you ought to be eating kosher, keeping *all* the commandments not just a measly ten etc etc not just cherry picking the bits you like and leaving atheists alone. It's what Jesus did after all as a Jew.


----------



## Empty Hands

Tez3 said:


> I would say if you are going to obey the 'Bible' you ought to be eating kosher, keeping *all* the commandments not just a measly ten etc etc not just cherry picking the bits you like and leaving atheists alone. It's what Jesus did after all as a Jew.



I agree, we really should be stoning those rebellious children who won't get off my lawn.


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've long said my path was a long and winding one. I grew up Episcopal. Went agnostic in high school, spent a little time following Lavey, became Born Again, decided I got it right the first time and 'back slid', heard the Call of the Goddess, then decided that pondering The Way was what was needed to fix my Confusian. But living in the cold north-east I aimed for warmer climates so hitched a ride with Apollo on his charriot stopping off to walk along the Nile with Isis, Anubis and Bast. But I was called eastward again to Dance with Shivah. Now I find that No Mind is a pleasing thought while I seek Inner Wisdom. Soon I'll move along the path again, where too I don't know, but regardless I know I will continue to grow as I Walk.
> 
> Along the way I've met many good people, had many a deep discussion and heated argument. I've read more scripture, from more dead cultures that I've read Star Trek novels, and I have 2 book cases of those.
> 
> My thinking is balanced by logic, some say heresy, some say fantasy. I don't believe that any one religion is correct. I think all are right, for some, but none right for all. A world as diverse as ours couldn't have any one religion be correct any more than we have 1 tree or 1 flower. We just are.
> 
> My personal experiences, which I share with few in detail, tell me that there is something out there. But it's beyond our ability to understand right now, that 'we will understand when we get there'.
> 
> *If you wish to pray for me, I am not offended. If you wish to 'send positive energy', regardless of it's form, it's always appreciated. That someone takes the time to think of me, is always warming.* If they take the time to curse me, I know I'm winning.
> 
> An Ye Harm None, Do As Ye Wish.
> 
> Namaste.
> 
> :asian:



When Christians pray for us it's that we 'see the light' and convert that's why it's offensive. We are the damned Jews, we have to be saved, there's no positive energy coming our way. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews


----------



## Instructor

Empty Hands said:


> How so?  And if that is true, why such a strong and angry reaction to atheist arguments?



I was not angry, merely stating what I believe.  From the Christian perspective life and death without God leads to suffering.  It needn't be your perspective but it's mine.  Again, not angry, just talking about what I believe in a matter of factual sort of way.


----------



## oftheherd1

Empty Hands said:


> Well, I appreciate that. I understand what you mean and where you are coming from. As for the numbers, according to Pew, 78.4% of adults identify as Christian, 4.7% as other religions, and 16.1% as "unaffiliated." Of that group, 1.6% atheist, 2.4% agnostic, and 6.3% "secular unaffiliated." So at best, you have 10.3% of the population that identify as potentially without belief.
> 
> *Thanks.  I must admit I am surprised by those figures.
> *
> 
> 
> This mirrors my own thoughts. Although as you said, not the "most fruitful" way to go about it. I'm mostly concerned about potential fallout.
> 
> *Understandable.  I hope there is never any negative fallout for you.
> *
> 
> No, I think religion makes some people quite happy. What I mean is that various religious strictures and beliefs bring some good people great pain. Take, for example, a believer growing up gay in a household that teaches that homosexuality is wrong and immoral. Such a believer experiences pain in themselves from believing that what they are is wrong and they cannot change it, no matter how they try, and they experience pain if they come out as gay to those around him or her, who condemn and exclude. There are many real stories like this from gay people, I'm not just making up hypotheticals. Or a believer who scourges themselves mentally for not being able to live up to the strictures of their religion, which often is an impossible task. Or a woman believer who is taught that she must submit in meekness and bear children, when what would make her happy is a career and independence. And so on. This pain is not necessary.



Yes, now I understand what you are saying about people being unhappy.  At least I do partly.  But I would think that might indicate a lack of complete commitment.  We are human, and must at times deal with the adamic nature we have.  It will be a struggle, but we should want to continue to perservere in the right.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Tez3 said:


> When Christians pray for us it's that we 'see the light' and convert that's why it's offensive. We are the damned Jews, we have to be saved, there's no positive energy coming our way.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews



Tez, its because of you Jews that I am right now drinking a damn delicious glass of Kosher Coca Cola. 
I wouldn't trade you lot for all the tea in Hong Kong.


----------



## Empty Hands

Instructor said:


> I was not angry, merely stating what I believe.  From the Christian perspective life and death without God leads to suffering.  It needn't be your perspective but it's mine.  Again, not angry, just talking about what I believe in a matter of factual sort of way.



No, I know you weren't angry.  I was asking, if atheists are a threat only to themselves, then why do some Christians react to atheists in such an angry and strong way?  That implies they are a threat.  If someone is not a threat, it doesn't seem like anyone would pay them any attention.

How am I suffering without God?  I'm reasonably happy and healthy, I just moved to a new home with a great new job and my wife and I are working on a family.  Meanwhile, some Christians I know are miserable.  Doesn't really compute.


----------



## Tez3

Jenna said:


> *@Tez3* and *@CanuckMA*,
> 
> All I know is that I have a limited exposure to the Jewish faith and *I* would be interested in hearing and learning more of the positive aspects of your faith. I am sure there are a great many.
> 
> I can only speak for myself and but I have never seen sense in trying to pull the rug of faith from under the feet of someone and I am sorry that you have been at the pointed end of unpleasantness.
> 
> I would be grateful if only for me that you would share some of the good things that your faith has given you as it is a testament to you and how you live your lives through your faith and is an example to everyone else. That is all I am interested in. I am sad when people are angry when talking of their faith or their atheism. I am sorry if this thread seems flippant or trivial. I only seek to share something positive that each of us has in our faith and would be happy if you felt inclined to explain the good things that your faith brings to you in your life. And but I understand that we are all different. I know not everyone is like me in these things. Sometimes I feel naive when I post a thread like this and look back and see a wake of anger behind. I understand this. I hope you are both well.




How long have you got? It's more than a faith, we are a race of people, in the UK and many other places in Europe this is set in law. I was told many years ago that Christians believe in G-d, Jews don't, they *know* there's a G-d so it's not a belief as such but much more. We have a Covenant, a bargain, with G-d we keep our side maybe not so well, he keeps his better, we argue with Him, he's one of us yet not but we have a very personal relationship with Him. Christians I think are the only ones who talk about it being 'faith', the older religions as with ours it just *is*.


----------



## Instructor

Tez3 said:


> When Christians pray for us it's that we 'see the light' and convert that's why it's offensive. We are the damned Jews, we have to be saved, there's no positive energy coming our way.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews



Patently untrue, at least for me, I pray for a multitude of things.  Sometimes I just want them to find peace in their relationships or I pray that someone's marriage will work out.  I've prayed that maybe a person's disease will get miraculously cured or perhaps they will suffer less.

I don&#8217;t do the anti-Semitism thing.  The entire early church including Jesus were Jews.

I do pray that an unbeliever will find belief, but I don&#8217;t chase them around trying to upset or offend them.  It's generally a private thing.  If somebody gets angry or offended I just drop the subject and remember them in my prayers privately.


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tez, its because of you Jews that I am right now drinking a damn delicious glass of Kosher Coca Cola.
> I wouldn't trade you lot for all the tea in Hong Kong.



You're welcome! what about that pink slime we've been reading about?
However a week on Friday Christians all over the world are going to be praying that we abandon our lives and join their 'faith', it's not as though they are even polite about it!
Bill M, as a Catholic will you be saying the prayer that condemns and asks that we convert?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Re Pink Slime.  I keep hoping they retire from Congress. 

Re; joining faiths.  You can all join mine.  It's called Fritzianity, and it involves petting a house cat named Fritz who thinks hes the universe.  When scritched the universe is at peace, when he's not, it's not pretty.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Well it was our 'Bible' first and it's our G-d you worship so perhaps the Jews are the strongest? You may need to brush up on your kosher cooking and start listening to your mothers!
> 
> Seriously though for a minute, Jesus if he came back would be an Orthodox Jew still, so how would that change or colour your beliefs? he kept all the High Holidays, ate kosher and was a Rabbi, everything he said was already in what you call the Old Testament, he was a Jew through and through. His non Jewish followers may have taken over and changed things but he would still worship in a shul rather than a church surely.



That is your belief.  That is OK, you are free to have your beliefs as I am mine.  But as I pointed out in my post, my Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament.  You choose to only believe in the Old Testament.  I believe in both.  In my belief, Jesus was both God and man.  As a man, he was indeed a Jew in everything.  There is no problem in that.  But he was also God manifast as a man to teach us and provide us free salvation.  The Bible (the New Testament) as I recollect, does not say the Jesus will return as a man, only that He will return.  His first appearance will be in the air to collect those saved.  Would he worship in a synagogue or shul?  I don't know that he would.  As I said, he founded His church, and reading the New Testament makes it appear those jews who believed in him, were not welcomed in the synagogues, but in fact, excluded.  But in my belief it is a moot point. 

I always (well, almost always) listened to my mother.  The kosher cooking I am not required to follow by revelation of God to Peter in the New Testament.  If you wish to there is no problem.  Daniel made a point of it and it obviously was healthy for him.


----------



## Instructor

Empty Hands said:


> No, I know you weren't angry.  I was asking, if atheists are a threat only to themselves, then why do some Christians react to atheists in such an angry and strong way?  That implies they are a threat.  If someone is not a threat, it doesn't seem like anyone would pay them any attention.
> 
> How am I suffering without God? I'm reasonably happy and healthy, I just moved to a new home with a great new job and my wife and I are working on a family. Meanwhile, some Christians I know are miserable. Doesn't really compute.


 
I am glad you are not suffering.  It brings me joy to know that you are happy and healthy.  Conversely I as a Christian am going through a difficult time right now.  Faith doesn't guarantee no suffering, in fact quite the opposite sometimes.  I can say I never suffer alone .

I find debate to be fairly impossible when it comes to this sort of thing.  Most atheist can debate me in circles all day.  I am not selling anything or trying to convince you of anything, merely telling you what I believe.  In the end I can only witness what I have experienced and how it has shaped my beliefs.

All Christians are on a path, the path isn't the same for everybody or even anybody.  Some of us just started down the path and we say and do things that we might not as we go further along.  Some have progressed quite far and have peace in their hearts and wisdom.  

But, even the wise and loving Christians are still sinners and human beings just like everybody else, we experience all the messy feelings that everybody else does.

For example if an atheist or another person of another religion decided to debate the merits of one belief over another with me I would probably be pretty reasonable about it, so long as they were.  But if a similar person tried to espouse those ideas to one of my children when I wasn't around I would likely express anger.


----------



## Tez3

Instructor said:


> Patently untrue, at least for me, I pray for a multitude of things. Sometimes I just want them to find peace in their relationships or I pray that someone's marriage will work out. I've prayed that maybe a person's disease will get miraculously cured or perhaps they will suffer less.
> 
> I don&#8217;t do the anti-Semitism thing. The entire early church including Jesus were Jews.
> 
> I do pray that an unbeliever will find belief, but I don&#8217;t chase them around trying to upset or offend them. It's generally a private thing. If somebody gets angry or offended I just drop the subject and remember them in my prayers privately.




Are you so sure then that you are right and I'm wrong? I'm a Jew and Jesus was a Jew so really why are you not following what he was, why so sure that an 'unbeliever' like myself is so wrong? By thinking I'm an unbeliever how is that not anti semitism? You want me to change my race, my culture, my tribe, my people to become one of you. That's as about anti as you can get.

I think that you are wrong as an American, I shall pray that you leave American and all it's evils and become British, that you forsake everything American, that you forget you were ever an American and you speak with a British accent you eat fish and chips, bet on the dogs, read The Sun and never say a good word about America ever again. See it doesn't work does it? We are as G-d meant us to be, to try to convert people is against His wishes.


----------



## Instructor

Tez3 said:


> Are you so sure then that you are right and I'm wrong? I'm a Jew and Jesus was a Jew so really why are you not following what he was, why so sure that an 'unbeliever' like myself is so wrong? By thinking I'm an unbeliever how is that not anti semitism? You want me to change my race, my culture, my tribe, my people to become one of you. That's as about anti as you can get.
> 
> I think that you are wrong as an American, I shall pray that you leave American and all it's evils and become British, that you forsake everything American, that you forget you were ever an American and you speak with a British accent you eat fish and chips, bet on the dogs, read The Sun and never say a good word about America ever again. See it doesn't work does it? We are as G-d meant us to be, to try to convert people is against His wishes.



Ah Tez you honor me.  My daughter would choose UK in a second!  In a sense as sinners, we are all wrong .  I am not good enough to be Jewish.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> Bill M, as a Catholic will you be saying the prayer that condemns and asks that we convert?



What prayer would that be?  I don't recall condemning anyone.  The Good Friday Prayer does pray for conversion of the Jews, yes:

_Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
_

It's not my doctrine, I'd just as soon not say it at all, but yes, it's Catholic.


----------



## Langenschwert

Asatru.

For those who don't know what that is, it's Norse polytheism, also known as Heathenism. Some practicioners try to practice as closely as possible to historical evidence, whereas I'm more in the camp of "what would it be like today if there had been no Christianity?"

What I like about it is, there is no salvation. Humans don't need it. We are fine as we are. The idea is to be the type of person the gods would want to hang out with. We have no sacred scriptures that we consider to be divinely inspired. We know the sagas and eddas are myths. They are illustrations of how our forefathers thought about some religious issues. Since there are multiple deities, we are not so fond of damning others for their beliefs, since they could be as "right" as ours. People should worship (or not) as they see fit. As long as they don't hinder me in mine. We do not turn the other cheek. There is no commandment to worship (or even like) the gods. That's the individual's choice. The one thing a Heathen must never do is disrespect the ancestors, either his own or those of others.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> That is your belief. That is OK, you are free to have your beliefs as I am mine. But as I pointed out in my post, my Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament. You choose to only believe in the Old Testament. I believe in both. In my belief, Jesus was both God and man. As a man, he was indeed a Jew in everything. There is no problem in that. But he was also God manifast as a man to teach us and provide us free salvation. The Bible (the New Testament) as I recollect, does not say the Jesus will return as a man, only that He will return. His first appearance will be in the air to collect those saved. Would he worship in a synagogue or shul? I don't know that he would. As I said, he founded His church, and reading the New Testament makes it appear those jews who believed in him, were not welcomed in the synagogues, but in fact, excluded. But in my belief it is a moot point.
> 
> I always (well, almost always) listened to my mother. The kosher cooking I am not required to follow by revelation of God to Peter in the New Testament. If you wish to there is no problem. Daniel made a point of it and it obviously was healthy for him.



The thing we aren't free to have our beliefs because you want to change us, you feel it encumbant on you to change me because you believe I'm in the wrong. Btw if Jews are excluded from a synagogue they will just go either to another one or start one themselves. Judaism isn't like the Catholic Church for example having an actual organisation. 
I don't 'chose' to believe in the 'Old Testament', I know it exists so no belief needed, it's the history and texts of *my* people. To read something into them that's not there or to change the meanings of what is written to suit another's religion is just wrong frankly. You'd get annoyed if I started misquoting the American Constitution, taking it over and readng stuff into it and telling you I'm right so why do you do it with our texts, our constitition if you like.


----------



## Jenna

Instructor said:


> I honestly don't know Jenna. I don't ridicule other people or their religions or the lack thereof. Ultimately we are all here just trying to find our way in life. I think some people deal with fear by tormenting others. I think some people open themselves up to be tormented though I know not why.


Can I ask you if you feel that faith (or perhaps rather the dogma of religion) has in some way made itself an easy target for ridicule?  I think as people we are not perfect.  Do you think that perhaps some professing a faith who might hold theirselves up as perfect -and are subesquently and publicly shown to be nothing of the kind- are in any way responsible for this ridiculing?  I am sure there are other reasons too yes?  Perhaps religion or faith is perceived as a threat.  I understand this too.  I think none of us like to feel threatened.  I am interested in your views.  Thank you for posting 




Sukerkin said:


> Aye, some part of the roots of the strength of my feelings on the negative aspects of religion and religious belief (there are positive aspects too) has been fed by my father. Not that his faith has been leading him to do any evil, quite the reverse but because, since I was about fifteen, every time we speak we end up circling the same topic viz my lack of willingness to believe in a creator deity and his lack of willingness to stop trying to reconvert me.
> 
> I have to be careful when I speak here on matters of religion because, as I am only human, all those decades of debate going over the same ground again and again have made me prone to speak in derisory terms - I cannot speak to my father that way and the pressure has to come out somewhere . Not something I am proud of, I do confess .


Ah ok I am sorry I do not mean to coerce you into talking about something which is difficult or private. I apologise  I am grateful though for your sharing.  I would not presume to be in the mind of your father.  I am sure this is frustrating for you.  I wonder if there is a conflict between wanting to please someone who means a lot to you and not being able to reconcile their demands with your own values?  That must be difficult and cause a deal of strife.  And if you are slighted by not having your views acknowledged as valid then I think it is only natural to rail against that slight.  I am glad you are insightful enough to acknowledge these things to yourself.  And I am also grateful for your sharing.  

I would ask and if it is impertinent or private then feel no obligation  and but if you have been raised in a family of faith, how did you determine atheism as the true path? I wish I could say why your father will not simply accept you for you; for the good person that you are.  I wonder what he thinks your belief in a deity will do?  Do you think he has your interest or his at heart?   Thank you again, Sir 




Empty Hands said:


> I've met a good number of religious people both online and off that have no issue debating their faith or the existence of God. However, some do not, not at all. I do not think that atheism is necessarily a threat to faith, but i think it nonetheless is a threat for some people. People who are insecure in their faith, or who have based their faith on certain "rocks" like the inerrancy of scripture or Young Earth Creationism are particularly vulnerable. The presence of counter-arguments that undercut their "rocks", or simply the presence of people who do not believe as they do, provokes insecurity and a harsh reaction. I think that some people also view their faith in very personal, emotional terms. People who then argue against their faith are not a threat as such, but are attacking something personal and close, which provokes a reaction. And as I said, plenty of believers have no problem at all with the debate.
> 
> As for the other way around, I do not think theism is a threat to atheism. The harsh reactions from atheists are mostly a reaction to experiences they have had, and prevailing cultural attitudes. It will probably calm down quite a bit with time as acceptance improves, just as it has for most of Europe.


Yes I can see that an insecurity in a faith breeds anger when that faith is called into question.  I think that is not a faith at all and but a frail leaf handing on a stem waiting to be clipped.  Is it cruel if I say you are doing a service to faith by exposing this?  I hope not.  I do not mean to be cruel only I think sometimes the emptiest vessels make the most sound.  I would say that happens not just in the weak of faith and but among atheists that are not firm in their own rationale.  I think in both cases neither should speak out because it only comes out as anger I think.  Do you think notion has any basis in fact?

I think the personal aspect is important too.  A perceived disrespect on say my martial art, I would not take as an affront to me personally (though I have seen it happen at the door of an old dojo where some of the seniors where prepared to put someone down physically for &#8220;mocking&#8221; Aikido.  I remember wondering why.  I think though I have not seen them again that their affront may have been from an uncertainty within theirselves?  I do not know if that is me doing armchair psychodynamics lol.  I really do think you have hit the nail on the head though in highlighting insecurity.  It is funny how we react in these cases.  Insecurity and lack of empathy for the other position.  I think those are key, no?

Likewise, it is easy to understand the reaction that many have had against religions (both from within religion inter- and intra- and from without) considering how many religions conduct theirselves.  I think it is proof that we are indoctrinated when we give assent to acts that in our hearts we know we cannot condone.. ah.. Hey thank you for the discussion.  I am grateful to hear your views, especially on how to reach common  ground across such disparate worldviews 



oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think Christians should compromise with other religions. Nor do I think we should be antagonistic in attempting to win others to Christ. If others are antagonistic towards us, we should not return antagonism for antagonism. We should either continue to try to show them the way to salvation with love, or just leave them alone in their belief. If you believe the Bible, the strongest will eventially win. That would be Christ and His church. But the battle will be apocalyptic. ;-)


I think that is a good balance.  I think though not compromising does not equate to non-tolerance?  

Can I ask please is you view of a multi-faith earth one of competition leading to the ultimate victory for the righteous?  

Can I ask also, do you think there are sources of commonality between faiths?  Or must the lessons of exclusion &#8211;either explicit or implied&#8211; within the various holy texts be taken literally?

I am very interested in your views.  Thank you very much for participating.





Bob Hubbard said:


> I've long said my path was a long and winding one. I grew up Episcopal. Went agnostic in high school, spent a little time following Lavey, became Born Again, decided I got it right the first time and 'back slid', heard the Call of the Goddess, then decided that pondering The Way was what was needed to fix my Confusian. But living in the cold north-east I aimed for warmer climates so hitched a ride with Apollo on his charriot stopping off to walk along the Nile with Isis, Anubis and Bast. But I was called eastward again to Dance with Shivah. Now I find that No Mind is a pleasing thought while I seek Inner Wisdom. Soon I'll move along the path again, where too I don't know, but regardless I know I will continue to grow as I Walk.
> 
> Along the way I've met many good people, had many a deep discussion and heated argument. I've read more scripture, from more dead cultures that I've read Star Trek novels, and I have 2 book cases of those.
> 
> My thinking is balanced by logic, some say heresy, some say fantasy. I don't believe that any one religion is correct. I think all are right, for some, but none right for all. A world as diverse as ours couldn't have any one religion be correct any more than we have 1 tree or 1 flower. We just are.
> 
> My personal experiences, which I share with few in detail, tell me that there is something out there. But it's beyond our ability to understand right now, that 'we will understand when we get there'.
> 
> If you wish to pray for me, I am not offended. If you wish to 'send positive energy', regardless of it's form, it's always appreciated. That someone takes the time to think of me, is always warming. If they take the time to curse me, I know I'm winning.
> 
> An Ye Harm None, Do As Ye Wish.
> 
> Namaste.


Bob, thank you for sharing.  Can I ask please, through your orthodox and otherworldly travels, would you say you currently have a faith?   Can I also ask what was the first step or what caused you to take that first step out of the security of your Episcopal upbringing and into the enforced uncertainty of the agnostic?  And because I am interested, can I also ask without annoying you, how would you say your travels with faith and through faith in its various incarnations informs your life, your choices and demeanour right now?  Am I seeing you as a Faith Tourist?  Or do you stop and abide a while in a place?  Thank you for sharing your journey.  It must certainly have given you a wide perspective over the landscape.  I am grateful to learn and would like to know more 





CanuckMA said:


> I'm an Orthodox Jew. My faith is part of my life. Everything I do is imbued by my faith. And I can't hide it. The kipa is a dead give away. I came to it after a secular upbrigning. Tez had put it quite eloquently, as usual. I also come at the 'love' of Xtians from a different angle. I grew up in the French neighbourhoods of Montreal during the 60s and 70s. I went to public school, that meant Catholic school. I learned very quickly to hide my identity. I'm fortunate to have a 'generic' name. Easter was not a fun time for me. Filled with the "Jews killed Jesus" rethoric.
> 
> 
> I have reached the point where I've had it up to here with Xtians trying to argue the meaning of MY sacred texts. I'm sorry, but if you can't read the original language, you don't really know what it says.


I am very grateful for the opportunity to learn some more of your faith.  Again, I am sorry that you personally have had unpleasant experience as a result of nothing more than your beliefs.  I think from my experience of your hometown, if you had not been picked on for one thing it would have been for another.  It is a cosmopolitan city full of such diversity and but every creed and race and colour and identity wants their own exclusive bit.  I do not envy you growing up there, it must have been very very difficult.  And do you live there still now?  I hope you have found a greater acceptance wherever you are now and I hope you have not had to hide your faith although I appreciate that bigotry can be anywhere.  Please share some more of the positive aspects of your faith and how it informs your life today.  I would be very grateful indeed if you were inclined.  Thank you again.






Tez3 said:


> How long have you got? It's more than a faith, we are a race of people, in the UK and many other places in Europe this is set in law. I was told many years ago that Christians believe in G-d, Jews don't, they know there's a G-d so it's not a belief as such but much more. We have a Covenant, a bargain, with G-d we keep our side maybe not so well, he keeps his better, we argue with Him, he's one of us yet not but we have a very personal relationship with Him. Christians I think are the only ones who talk about it being 'faith', the older religions as with ours it just is.



Tez thank you for sharing.  I admit my lack of exposure to the Jewish faith renders me practically ignorant and so what I would like is to know more of the good and positive and uplifting and encouraging experiences that you have had as a result of being a Jewish woman.   

I think I truly like the idea of knowing as distinctly different from believing.  I think if you can know something it is almost akin to unlocking a very great secret that believing on its own cannot.  I thought I was the only one to think like this.  I did not know it was a staple in your faith.  My father showed that to me saying you cannot even move your little finger by believing.  You know it and it moves.  I appreciate it is not the same and but the principle always seemed to have a scope.  

And can I ask how this security in your faith has perhaps given you strength in your daily life?  I hope that is not to pry.  Thank you for the above.  There are so many negative things about so many faiths, I am very grateful to hear the positive things.  Thank you.


----------



## Tez3

Bill Mattocks said:


> What prayer would that be? I don't recall condemning anyone. The Good Friday Prayer does pray for conversion of the Jews, yes:
> 
> _Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
> _
> 
> It's not my doctrine, I'd just as soon not say it at all, but yes, it's Catholic.



and how did that prayer originally read for centuries until recently changed to less strong language? 

"Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts 2 Corinthians 3:13-16; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. ('Amen' _is not responded, nor is said_ 'Let us pray', _or_ 'Let us kneel', _or_ 'Arise', _but immediately is said:_) Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen"




It was even worse before that, we were the perfidious Jews... "pro perfidis judaeis". the Anglican and Orthodox Churches are no better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Empty Hands said:


> I was asking, if atheists are a threat only to themselves, then why do some Christians react to atheists in such an angry and strong way?  That implies they are a threat.  If someone is not a threat, it doesn't seem like anyone would pay them any attention.



Wheelp, let's see.  I don't go around telling atheists that they are stupid not to believe in God.  I don't care if they do or not, it's entirely their business.  But I've got a couple of FB friends who are atheists who seem to delight in posting things like _"See what your imaginary wish-granting sky-fairy did this time?"_  Yes, very amusing.  Oh, wait, I mean, very childish.  For people who say they simply don't believe in God for themselves, they seem to have a strong, perhaps uncontrollable urge to attempt to offend as many Christians as possible.  I am not referring to you, but I'm trying to answer your question.  Do they threaten me?  No, they annoy me, the petulant little bitches.

I find it a bit amusing, although it does not annoy me or threaten me, that several of them apparently like to attend atheist meetings on a regular basis; you know, like religious services.  I just find it hilarious.  I don't know what you talk about at an atheist get-together.  _"Well, here we all are, no thanks to the God that doesn't exist."  "Yep."  "Are we all agreed that there is no God?"  "Yep, definitely no God."  "Well, OK, then.  Who brought the beer?"_

I mean, all joking aside, I am defined at least partially by what I believe.  I cannot imagine being defined by what I do NOT believe.  In other words, religion is part of my life; but how is the absence of religion part of anyone's life?  How do you embrace what you don't believe instead of what you do?  I'm not saying atheism is wrong, meetings about it seem like caring about a null void.  Here is where God would be if I believed in and loved Him.  I don't, so I love this empty spot where He would be instead.  Huh?

On a more practical note, as I've stated earlier, all of us have the right to try to live in a society that reflects our values; religious or otherwise.  And while atheists are often unhappy with state-supported religious trappings (and by the way, I frequently agree with them, surprise), some atheists have an agenda that includes dismantling religion, not just keeping a strong wall between Church and State.  Are they a threat to me?  Sure they are!  They have the right to try to get their agenda passed, and I have the right to try to stop them from doing so.

That does not make all atheists my enemy.  But those who would try to tear down religious institutions or control them, yeah, pretty much.  They are a threat to me because I do not want what they want.  And I have the right to both feel that way and to work to stop them by casting my votes against that nonsense.

But like I said.  There are atheists who just don't believe in God - that's cool.  There are atheists who dislike religion - fine with me.  And there are atheists who seem to have a problem with religious people, go out of their way to be insulting and crass, and then there are those atheists who actively try to destroy religion through political means.  So I do treat them differently, depending on what they are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> and how did that prayer originally read for centuries until recently changed to less strong language?



I wasn't alive then.



> "Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts 2 Corinthians 3:13-16; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. ('Amen' _is not responded, nor is said_ 'Let us pray', _or_ 'Let us kneel', _or_ 'Arise', _but immediately is said:_) Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen"



Yes, that was bad.  Shame on them.



> It was even worse before that, we were the perfidious Jews... "pro perfidis judaeis". the Anglican and Orthodox Churches are no better.



Tsk, tsk.  Feel free to pray for the perfidious Catholics if you wish, in revenge.  I promise not to mind.


----------



## Tez3

Jenna, I don't know if I can tell you what you want to know, to be being Jewish is who I am, I don't actually think about it in the same way Christians think about their religion. The best I can suggest is getting a couple of Rabbi Lionel Blue's books and having a read especially his 'A Guide to the Here and Hereafter' it probably will make things as clear a mud but it's a good read.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jenna said:


> Bob, thank you for sharing.  Can I ask please, through your orthodox and otherworldly travels, would you say you currently have a faith?   Can I also ask what was the first step or what caused you to take that first step out of the security of your Episcopal upbringing and into the enforced uncertainty of the agnostic?  And because I am interested, can I also ask without annoying you, how would you say your travels with faith and through faith in its various incarnations informs your life, your choices and demeanour right now?  Am I seeing you as a Faith Tourist?  Or do you stop and abide a while in a place?  Thank you for sharing your journey.  It must certainly have given you a wide perspective over the landscape.  I am grateful to learn and would like to know more



I wouldn't call it a 'faith' so much as a 'belief system'.  Read enough of the stuff I post in the Study, toss out the obvious sarcasm and stuff posted whem my heads not clear, and you can get a good read....plus I also posted it in my little corner I think. 

First step away was questioning. I asked questions, didn't care for the answers, and started thinking.  Think on most of this stuff long enough and it's mostly tribal superstitions mixed in with health codes.  Remove that....you get some nice shiny stuff.   I found the ceremony's boring, skipped them, and hid in the church basement's sunday school reading everything they had. Comics, bibles, prayer books, hymnals, etc. End result was constantly being top of my classes, lol.

I think my exploration, willingness to question, and willingness to not take 'because the book says so' pisses some off, but gives me a more enriched perspective.  

In high school I was a member for 3 years with their Bible club.  Years later the group I was in Amway with were all 'Born Again', and I spent -alot- of time with both groups, in deep discussions. Deeper than most on here in fact. I've watched a thousand or more hours of documentary and archeology shows dealing with early Christianity.

The more I learn, the more I change my 'belief'.  It's why I don't think any 1 faith is right, but none are really wrong. Just different.

I wouldn't say I'm a tourist....just constantly evolving. It's like, eating at a mega buffet.  Some people will only eat what they know. Others try everything. I'm the later.

I've had experiences...some good, some not so good, some down right terrifying. Some deeper than I can explain.


----------



## Tez3

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wasn't alive then.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that was bad. Shame on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk. Feel free to pray for the perfidious Catholics if you wish, in revenge. I promise not to mind.




You weren't alive in 1955? I must be a lot older than you then lol!

I think I might have to pray for Americans anyway, for deliverance from pink slime.. Sorry it was in our newspapers today and we can't believe you eat that stuff!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Tez3 said:


> You weren't alive in 1955? I must be a lot older than you then lol!
> 
> I think I might have to pray for Americans anyway, for deliverance from pink slime.. Sorry it was in our newspapers today and we can't believe you eat that stuff!



Ehh, it tastes like chicken.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> You weren't alive in 1955? I must be a lot older than you then lol!



I was born in 1961.  I'm pretty sure I didn't attend any Good Friday Masses prior to that.  Sorry.



> I think I might have to pray for Americans anyway, for deliverance from pink slime.. Sorry it was in our newspapers today and we can't believe you eat that stuff!



I was shocked as well.


----------



## Jenna

Tez3 said:


> Jenna, I don't know if I can tell you what you want to know, to be being Jewish is who I am, I don't actually think about it in the same way Christians think about their religion. The best I can suggest is getting a couple of Rabbi Lionel Blue's books and having a read especially his 'A Guide to the Here and Hereafter' it probably will make things as clear a mud but it's a good read.


I will do that though it seems a little difficult to locate even on Amazon or ebay and but thank you for pointing me to this Tez.  I will not harangue you any more and I do appreciate you taking time to post here.  I wish you well.


----------



## Jenna

Bob Hubbard said:


> I wouldn't call it a 'faith' so much as a 'belief system'. Read enough of the stuff I post in the Study, toss out the obvious sarcasm and stuff posted whem my heads not clear, and you can get a good read....plus I also posted it in my little corner I think.
> 
> First step away was questioning. I asked questions, didn't care for the answers, and started thinking. Think on most of this stuff long enough and it's mostly tribal superstitions mixed in with health codes. Remove that....you get some nice shiny stuff. I found the ceremony's boring, skipped them, and hid in the church basement's sunday school reading everything they had. Comics, bibles, prayer books, hymnals, etc. End result was constantly being top of my classes, lol.
> 
> I think my exploration, willingness to question, and willingness to not take 'because the book says so' pisses some off, but gives me a more enriched perspective.
> 
> In high school I was a member for 3 years with their Bible club. Years later the group I was in Amway with were all 'Born Again', and I spent -alot- of time with both groups, in deep discussions. Deeper than most on here in fact. I've watched a thousand or more hours of documentary and archeology shows dealing with early Christianity.
> 
> The more I learn, the more I change my 'belief'. It's why I don't think any 1 faith is right, but none are really wrong. Just different.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm a tourist....just constantly evolving. It's like, eating at a mega buffet. Some people will only eat what they know. Others try everything. I'm the later.
> 
> I've had experiences...some good, some not so good, some down right terrifying. Some deeper than I can explain.


Bob reading this I picture you an eagle high above the landscape of faith that is rotating towards the curved horizon below.  When you touch down it is only to take what you need for sustenance?  I do not know if that is an appropriate allegory?  I am feeling a distance between you and faith maybe like the Architect in the film the Matrix.. you know this episode??  The person who oversees.. the conductor of the orchestra.  I do not know.. your explanation is like a ready-written memoir that I would read and be intrigued.  If you dip into everything at the buffet do you develop a taste for all cuisines of the earth instead of a sophisticated and discerning palate for the cannolis of little Italy or the figs of the desert?  Is one way better than the other?  It is maybe like saying that cross training many arts and extracting the best techniques from each is better than just one art with its obvious defensive flaws?  Is that an appropriate analogy?

Bob, can I ask, what are you an expert in?  

And what shiny stuff do you find underneath the dross of tribal superstitions?  And why is its shine insufficient?  And what would need to happen to make that shine sufficient for you? 

I have a lot of questions.  I do not know if you are ok to answer and but thank you for sharing.  Your journey is one that is intriguing to me for so many reasons.  Thank you again.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Jenna, I don't know if I can tell you what you want to know, to be being Jewish is who I am, I don't actually think about it in the same way Christians think about their religion. The best I can suggest is getting a couple of Rabbi Lionel Blue's books and having a read especially his 'A Guide to the Here and Hereafter' it probably will make things as clear a mud but it's a good read.



That is one of the things that are hard to grasp about Judaism. We are a people, mostly born into it. I did not choose to be Jewish. I just am. Torah is more than a Holy book. It is also a civil law code. It is instructions for daily life. There is little I do on a daily basis that does not remind me of what I am. From what I wear, to what I eat, or do not eat, to the way I act.

We are a communty. I used to rravel a fair bit. Whenever I found myself out of town on Shabbat, I would just head to the nearest shul, and immediately received many invitation to share Shabbat dinner, and often to stay over if my hotel was to far to walk. 

We are a continuing tradition. Torah is still read from scrolls, handwritten on animal skins. Friday next week, I will be sitting with my family for the first Seder. I will know that jews all over the world are doing the same. Using the same text. As we have done for the last 2,000 years.  It is an incredibly powerful sentiment. 

As Tez said, our belief in G-d is not faith, it is knowledge. As a people, we have experienced G-d. We stood at Sinai when He gave us His Torah.


----------



## Sukerkin

I usually hate to respond to posts by 'itemised' snippets {I term it "Bullet Point Wars" as it gives the appearance of being antagonistic} but Bill's post was so content-rich I reckoned it'd be too muddled to try and give my response in a more normally paragraphed way.  I certainly don't mean it to seem antagonistic and I think Bill and me know and respect each other well enough for strongly expressed views to be considered on their merits rather than causing offence.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Wheelp, let's see.  I don't go around telling atheists that they are stupid not to believe in God.  I don't care if they do or not, it's entirely their business.


 
Quite right ... tho' they are of course quite right :lol:



Bill Mattocks said:


> But I've got a couple of FB friends who are atheists who seem to delight in posting things like _"See what your imaginary wish-granting sky-fairy did this time?"_  Yes, very amusing.  Oh, wait, I mean, very childish.  For people who say they simply don't believe in God for themselves, they seem to have a strong, perhaps uncontrollable urge to attempt to offend as many Christians as possible.



Well I've said much the same myself before now.  It's not an urge to offend that drives such things, at least not for me, it is more akin to an intolerant aggravation; a tired refusal to give credence to the iterative superstitious beliefs of people who are supposed to be adults.  Most of the time I don't say such things here any more as I found that the 'fundamentalists' (small 'f') in America *are* actually offended by such words {in a :grrr: way rather than a :tsk: way} and I see no pleasure or and certainly no gain in annoying believers to a state of anger just for the sake of it.  It's not like by being dismissive I'm going to get them to change their minds; rather the reverse I would think. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I mean, all joking aside, I am defined at least partially by what I believe.  I cannot imagine being defined by what I do NOT believe.  In other words, religion is part of my life; but how is the absence of religion part of anyone's life?  How do you embrace what you don't believe instead of what you do?  I'm not saying atheism is wrong, meetings about it seem like caring about a null void.  Here is where God would be if I believed in and loved Him.  I don't, so I love this empty spot where He would be instead.  Huh?



I think that's faulty logic, my friend.  An absence of willingness to believe in a divinity is not a void.  After all, all the concept of God is is a primitive {in the historical anthropological sense} attempt to explain, without evidence, how the universe and us came into being.  Leaving aside all other science, the twin prongs of just cosmology and evolutionary theory alone do a much more convincing job of that, incomplete as they yet are; for they are based on observation and hypothesis testing rather than pure assertion.



Bill Mattocks said:


> On a more practical note, as I've stated earlier, all of us have the right to try to live in a society that reflects our values; religious or otherwise.  And while atheists are often unhappy with state-supported religious trappings (and by the way, I frequently agree with them, surprise), some atheists have an agenda that includes dismantling religion, not just keeping a strong wall between Church and State.  Are they a threat to me?  Sure they are!  They have the right to try to get their agenda passed, and I have the right to try to stop them from doing so.



Aye.  I stand with you in this, even tho' I think what you believe, or rather the institutional structure such beliefs spawn, is wrong and essentially harmful to human-kind as a whole.



Bill Mattocks said:


> That does not make all atheists my enemy.  But those who would try to tear down religious institutions or control them, yeah, pretty much.  They are a threat to me because I do not want what they want.  And I have the right to both feel that way and to work to stop them by casting my votes against that nonsense.



Just when I think that you're getting a bit too hot-headed about it all, you go and get me to agree with you again :lol:.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But like I said.  There are atheists who just don't believe in God - that's cool.  There are atheists who dislike religion - fine with me.  And there are atheists who seem to have a problem with religious people, go out of their way to be insulting and crass, and then there are those atheists who actively try to destroy religion through political means.  So I do treat them differently, depending on what they are.



That's the application of good sense :nods:.


----------



## Gemini

Jenna said:


> Thank you for your contribution.


I offer ramblings on this. Nothing worth thanks or response I think. 

I have to say I believe in God, but have no idea _why_. I'm inclined to think it has more to do with years of ingraining and less to do with any practical reason, which is an essential element for me to process. There are just too many practical reasons denying the existence of a single superior entity. But still I do. Go figure.  

It completely evades me as to why people would argue about, much less kill for, a religion or religious point of view, yet throughout history, it's probably the number one reason for premature death of men, and yet through thousands of years of existence, we have not "evolved" one bit. Because I don't really care what others believe, I just can't see myself getting upset by their religious views. It's totally lost on me. Go in peace. Really. So I ask myself why did I read though, and then respond to this entire thread. Because though it's not worth much, it offers a different (if not cloudy) perspective I suppose.

I have great respect for those who are firm in their beliefs. Even jealous at times I think.

It annoys the crap out of me when people "praise God" or "praise Allah" or whoever when they experience a moment of good fortune like winning a game or something equally trivial in matters of the universe. I'm pretty sure if there is an almighty entity, he/she/it has bigger issues. To assume "it's all about us" is simple arrogance. Hey! God created 14,000 new galaxies today and still found time to make sure I won a free coke in the McDonald's scratch off! Praise God! I want to vomit.

I always enjoy listening to the Dalai Lama, though Buddhism has never called me. He always makes me happy and I would love to see through his eyes just once.

I do not practice a religion. In days gone by, I would tell people i'm not religious, I'm a Christian. I don't want people praying for me. I'm not broken; I'm in transit. To where, I have no idea, but I know there's a place for me. Do not solicit me with your religion, I'll shut right down. Your path is not mine. It's the only thing about religion that I am sure about. At least today.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Are you so sure then that you are right and I'm wrong? I'm a Jew and Jesus was a Jew so really why are you not following what he was, why so sure that an 'unbeliever' like myself is so wrong? By thinking I'm an unbeliever how is that not anti semitism? You want me to change my race, my culture, my tribe, my people to become one of you. That's as about anti as you can get.
> 
> *Well, Jesus was indeed a Jew.  However, as a Christian, I follow the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament as well.  So I would say I am following what he was.  You obviously disagree.  That is your right.  I don't think of it as anti-semitism because I think the usual understanding of that word would be that I wish to do you some harm beyond seeing you accept my beliefs as yours, or hold back your civil liberties, only because you are Jewish.  I don't want to change your race, culture, tribe or people.  For the same reason I am not anti-other religions unless as Bill mentioned, I perceive them as trying to do me harm.  For curiosity, how do you view messianic Jews?
> 
> BTW, I do know of the tribes of Israel from the Bible, but don't recall anyone actually saying what tribe they were.  What tribe are you?*
> 
> I think that you are wrong as an American, I shall pray that you leave American and all it's evils and become British, that you forsake everything American, that you forget you were ever an American and you speak with a British accent you eat fish and chips, bet on the dogs, read The Sun and never say a good word about America ever again. See it doesn't work does it? We are as G-d meant us to be, to try to convert people is against His wishes.
> 
> *You may pray as you wish.  I think it would be a waste of your time, but you are free to do so.  I will not be angry with you.*





Tez3 said:


> The thing we aren't free to have our beliefs because you want to change us, you feel it encumbant on you to change me because you believe I'm in the wrong. Btw if Jews are excluded from a synagogue they will just go either to another one or start one themselves. Judaism isn't like the Catholic Church for example having an actual organisation.
> I don't 'chose' to believe in the 'Old Testament', I know it exists so no belief needed, it's the history and texts of *my* people. To read something into them that's not there or to change the meanings of what is written to suit another's religion is just wrong frankly. You'd get annoyed if I started misquoting the American Constitution, taking it over and readng stuff into it and telling you I'm right so why do you do it with our texts, our constitition if you like.
> 
> *Well, I might be annoyed, or just curious as to your motive.  But I have not misquoted the Old Testament that I know of.  It is Holy to Christians as well, also being God's word.  If I did misquote it, I would hope you would correct me.  If I disagreed with your statement as to my misquoting it, I would hope we could discuss it with civility.*





CanuckMA said:


> That is one of the things that are hard to grasp about Judaism. We are a people, mostly born into it. I did not choose to be Jewish. I just am. Torah is more than a Holy book. It is also a civil law code. It is instructions for daily life. There is little I do on a daily basis that does not remind me of what I am. From what I wear, to what I eat, or do not eat, to the way I act.
> 
> We are a communty. I used to rravel a fair bit. Whenever I found myself out of town on Shabbat, I would just head to the nearest shul, and immediately received many invitation to share Shabbat dinner, and often to stay over if my hotel was to far to walk.
> 
> We are a continuing tradition. Torah is still read from scrolls, handwritten on animal skins. Friday next week, I will be sitting with my family for the first Seder. I will know that jews all over the world are doing the same. Using the same text. As we have done for the last 2,000 years.  It is an incredibly powerful sentiment.
> 
> As Tez said, our belief in G-d is not faith, it is knowledge. As a people, we have experienced G-d. We stood at Sinai when He gave us His Torah.
> 
> *I would say Christians also know God, and have experienced God through Jesus and the Holy Ghost.  Where you would say you stood at Sinai, we would say we have been to the cross, having been washed in the blood of Jesus.*



I hope none of the above is taken as argumentative as that is not how I have meant it.  In the event I have said something that you consider so, please let me know.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> *BTW, I do know of the tribes of Israel from the Bible, but don't recall anyone actually saying what tribe they were. What tribe are you?  *



You really don't want to go there. Genetics, DNA and all that.....carry on.


----------



## Yondanchris

I am a Christian, have been since my early teens. Looked at a lot of other "religions" but realized I needed a relationship with God and not "religion"! I currently serve as the assistant pastor at Trinity Baptist In Downey, Ca and love every day I get to serve hurting and lost people!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jenna said:


> Bob reading this I picture you an eagle high above the landscape of faith that is rotating towards the curved horizon below.  When you touch down it is only to take what you need for sustenance?  I do not know if that is an appropriate allegory?  I am feeling a distance between you and faith maybe like the Architect in the film the Matrix.. you know this episode??  The person who oversees.. the conductor of the orchestra.  I do not know.. your explanation is like a ready-written memoir that I would read and be intrigued.  If you dip into everything at the buffet do you develop a taste for all cuisines of the earth instead of a sophisticated and discerning palate for the cannolis of little Italy or the figs of the desert?  Is one way better than the other?  It is maybe like saying that cross training many arts and extracting the best techniques from each is better than just one art with its obvious defensive flaws?  Is that an appropriate analogy?
> 
> Bob, can I ask, what are you an expert in?
> 
> And what shiny stuff do you find underneath the dross of tribal superstitions?  And why is its shine insufficient?  And what would need to happen to make that shine sufficient for you?
> 
> I have a lot of questions.  I do not know if you are ok to answer and but thank you for sharing.  Your journey is one that is intriguing to me for so many reasons.  Thank you again.



I like the imagery.  Has a bit of a 'Native American' vibe to it I think, Apache-ish maybe.

I have faith in my friends, faith in myself.  In Gods, not so much. I see too much suffering of innocents to believe the Gods care too much about mundane things.  

With the buffet idea, I try everything, but I have my favorites. I grew up in a Christian family, so my 'core' is 'tainted'/'imprinted' with those values. Just like having grown up with NY-Polish tastes, I find the food of other places 'different', sometimes extremely so.  I think comparing religions to foods is apt.  Take cheese for example.  NY and Wisconsin are famous for their cheeses, as is Italy.  But to a desert bushman in Africa, it's disgusting. To eat spoiled milk? Yuk!  Because that's what cheese is...old spoiled milk thats fermented. (oversimplification).  Comparing some religions is like talking cheese with someone who has a cultural dislike to it.  

By the same token, the art comparison is also fitting.  Some go the 'dabble, mix and match route'. Others focus intently on 1.
Both are valid, both work.  Just different approaches for different folks.

I'm an expert in web design, photography, photoshop and complaining about the TSA. 
In all other things, I'm but a learner.

The 'shiny' I find is the common threads. Most religions exist for guide you. To give you rules to live by. To offer explanations for 'things that go bump in the night'. To give hope that there's 'more' than what we have. To support and console you during trying times.  That's the 'shiny' I see.  I think too much to 'believe' in the 'superstition'.  For all my prayer, I've never heard a reply. Despite my 'logic' sometimes I do pray. Maybe I got answers but am too hard of hearing, or heart, to hear them. Dunno.

But I've never felt Gods presence in a church. Ever.    I felt it walking in the woods, alone, listening to the birds.  Look at my nature shots....you'll see God in there.

And I say God, I might say Gods, I might say Goddess. It's all interchangeable as I don't think we can see deity, except in the corner of our eyes when we least expect it.

And I mock it all, religiously as it were. Because I think any being that could create all this wonder, all this diversity, all this magnificence, has to have a sense of humor. I think we're proof of that warped sense of humor.  Because if I'm wrong, the world would be a lot less pleasant for a lot more of us, and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

I might be right, I might be wrong. Maybe the Jews are right after all....or maybe the Babylonians they took half their scripture from were right, or maybe the Sumatrians who the Babylonians stole from were....I'll find out when I die. Until then, I wander, sample, taste, and experience as much as I can.

Make sense?


----------



## Ken Morgan

I haven&#8217;t read through all the proceeding pages, but I&#8217;ve read enough to see the path this thread is taking. An adult discussion on a subject that can be volatile, nice to see.

I was christened Church of Ireland, but being six months old, I likely didn&#8217;t protest my objections too loudly. I&#8217;m sure I was happy to be dry, well feed and well rested, kinda like how I feel these days!! It&#8217;s odd, I see the CofI as part of my heritage, part of where my family comes from, part of my family history, it is a part of who I am. Though today, and for the past, 30+ years I have identified myself as an atheist.

I am also a libertarian, as such I want to leave people alone, in return, I also wish to be left alone. If people want to believe in a religion, have fun with that. The problems in my eyes start arising when people let their children die because they refuse medical treatment for them, push their beliefs, (even lack of beliefs), on others, want tax breaks because they believe in X and attend X church. Everyone has to journey down a specific path in life, it&#8217;s up to you to sit back and take stock of the path you have chosen, if it&#8217;s religion, fine, if it&#8217;s not religion, fine, just start down that path with your eyes open. If you find you&#8217;ve chosen the wrong path, back up, and take another one, there is no correct way, just leave everyone else alone to walk down the path they have so chosen. ( Yes it&#8217;s much more complicated than this, but I&#8217;m feeling metaphysical today!)


----------



## Sukerkin

Jenna said:


> Ah ok I am sorry I do not mean to coerce you into talking about something which is difficult or private. I apologise  I am grateful though for your sharing. I would not presume to be in the mind of your father. I am sure this is frustrating for you. I wonder if there is a conflict between wanting to please someone who means a lot to you and not being able to reconcile their demands with your own values? That must be difficult and cause a deal of strife. And if you are slighted by not having your views acknowledged as valid then I think it is only natural to rail against that slight. I am glad you are insightful enough to acknowledge these things to yourself. And I am also grateful for your sharing.
> 
> I would ask and if it is impertinent or private then feel no obligation  and but if you have been raised in a family of faith, how did you determine atheism as the true path? I wish I could say why your father will not simply accept you for you; for the good person that you are. I wonder what he thinks your belief in a deity will do? Do you think he has your interest or his at heart? Thank you again, Sir



No coercion, dear lady :bows:.  I sometimes speak of what I should not but I am seldom having my arm twisted when I do so .

Again, you are preceptive when you say that there is an awkwardness that arises from what I am convinced is true and what my father would have me believe (and how 'mule-headed', to use the American phrase, that can make me at times on this subject).

As to how I came to determine Atheism was the stance descriptive of my view of the universe; well, until very few years ago I have consistently titled myself as Agnostic.  There was nothing to suggest that there was a creator deity but likewise nothing that explicitly precluded there being one either.  As our knowledge increases, the space available for what is sometimes referred to as "The God of the Gaps" shrinks.  I am more convinced now than I have ever been that the evolution of both the magnificent universe and the magnificent brain that sits inside our skulls are being explained to such a satisfactory extent that the requirement for a supernatural component is diminished to close to zero.

As to my fathers motivation, it is altruistic in that he truly believes I am condemning myself by my rejection of God and he seeks to 'save' me.  What he has never come to see is that, if the God he believes in is so small minded as to punish me for non-belief in an environment where there is no evidence of his existence, then, even if such a deity existed, I would withhold my veneration from it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Suk, funny how so many of us look at the same things, yet come to different conclusions.


I'll make everyone a deal.
If we reincarnate, we meet and have a drink together.
If we find ourselves in 'Heaven', we meet and have a cold drink together.
If we find ourselves in 'Hell', we meet and have a hot drink together.
If we find ourselves just dust in the wind, we'll all meet in some other blokes drink together.


----------



## Buka

My mom wanted to start taking me to church when I was five. My dad told her, "Bring him to a different church each week and let him decide where he wants to go." So she did. Each week we would go to a different place of worship. A Synagogue one week, a Catholic church the next, a Protestant, Baptist, etc etc. This went on for two years. It was a lot of fun for a little kid. They were all nice places and the people were nice to us. A lot of the places had really neat windows.
Then, I decided to go with the faith that all the other little kids I hung around with belonged to. But I felt at home in any place of worship so sometimes I went to other places.

I've found that religions are somewhat similar to Karate schools. The other guy is always the infidel.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> [/b] *Well, Jesus was indeed a Jew.  However, as a Christian, I follow the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament as well.  So I would say I am following what he was.  You obviously disagree.  That is your right. *


*

What he was ws Jewish. Xtianity does not start until well after his death.




			I don't think of it as anti-semitism because I think the usual understanding of that word would be that I wish to do you some harm beyond seeing you accept my beliefs as yours, or hold back your civil liberties, only because you are Jewish.  I don't want to change your race, culture, tribe or people.  For the same reason I am not anti-other religions unless as Bill mentioned, I perceive them as trying to do me harm.
		
Click to expand...


But it is anti-semitic. What most Xtians don't understand is that Jews and Judaism exist as one. When you try to convert Jews, you are destroying us as a people. Judaism is not something that is tacked on t our nationality/peoplehood. It is what we are.




			For curiosity, how do you view messianic Jews?
		
Click to expand...


Interesting question, it hinges on how you capitalize messianic. All Jews are messianic. I pray for the arrival of the Messiah daily. What is an Oxymoron are Messianic Jews. "Jews" who believe that Jesus was the Messiah. There is no such thing. If you believe Jesus was the Messiah, you are a Xtian. Organizations like Jews for Jesus are all Xtian organization. They prey on the unafialated, sometimes alienated Jews. They setup shop near universities, where young Jews, sometimes rebelious against their parents can be targeted. In my city, they first set up in an area with a heavy concentration of Russian Jews. Recent Russian immigrants tend to be uneducated about Judaism, and are easy prey to the Jewish trappings of "Messianic synagogues". 




			BTW, I do know of the tribes of Israel from the Bible, but don't recall anyone actually saying what tribe they were.  What tribe are you?
		
Click to expand...

*


> .



Tribal affiliation has largely been lost. The only tribal knowledge that has been passed down are from Levi. Both Levites and Cohens, the priests. Everybody else is now just called Yisroel.


----------



## Instructor

> Can I ask you if you feel that faith (or perhaps rather the dogma of religion) has in some way made itself an easy target for ridicule? I think as people we are not perfect. Do you think that perhaps some professing a faith who might hold theirselves up as perfect -and are subesquently and publicly shown to be nothing of the kind- are in any way responsible for this ridiculing? I am sure there are other reasons too yes? Perhaps religion or faith is perceived as a threat. I understand this too. I think none of us like to feel threatened. I am interested in your views. Thank you for posting



I couldn't say, perhaps its just closed mindedness on both sides.  For example though I am a Christian I often read the works about the Tao.  Zen is appealing to me.  Many of my Christian brethren would say some pretty rotten stuff about my interest.  However I can find tons of passages in the Bible that are very Zen!

Plenty of horrors have been done in the name of Christianity such as baptism by the sword.  One thing that separates us from many other religions is we feel that Jesus is literally the only way to heaven.  It automatically excludes all other paths.  I feel we should be tolerant of others and their ways but for a couple of thousand years most Christian sects look on all other ideas with disregard.  In fact sometimes we turn on each other such as Protestant v.s. Catholic violence.  On the whole, not a very tolerant group.

I am a Protestant who studies Zen and attends a Catholic College.  The world takes all kinds of people and I believe that God and Jesus loves them all.


----------



## WC_lun

Not being Christian in America can be a pain at times.  That is why many of us that aren't Christian decide to keep quiet.  To understand this, you would have to put the shoe on the other foot.  How often are Christians told they are going to hell, just because they are Christians?  How often are you told your faith has no merit?  Not specific parts of your faith, but your entire faith?  I was once told by a hospital minister right before a major surgery that I needed to repent and join the Christian faith or I would die on the table and go to hell as a punishment.  I hope you have not had a similiar experience, but some of my non-Christian friends have experienced similiar things.

Over time I have learned that these things are not Christian, but rather fearful people trying to spread thier fear.  However, I just don't want to deal with those people, so for a long time I would not announce my faith, even when asked.  I do think that it is getting better.  This thread is an example of that.  Inteeligent people speaking about a very personal thing with respect.


----------



## Instructor

For me it's like I meet somebody, grow to like them and respect them.  Then one day I learn they aren't a Christian.  I don't like them less because of it. On the contrary, I worry about them!  I don't want to get to heaven and not have any friends there.

I don't want anybody to go to hell.  I especially don't want a person to go if I could have stopped it somehow.  I have lost friends and sometimes I feel shame that I never spoke to them about Jesus.  What did my failure cost?


----------



## Cyriacus

Jenna said:


> Yes, I understand this analogy, thank you.  And have you given this analogy in the third person for a reason?  It is your personal faith I am interested in   I think you are correct, we cannot know anything for sure except what our faith has proven to us  And since you have not explicitly stated your faith, would I assume you are reticent for the aforementioned reasons?  Or have I misinterpreted what you have written?  I do appreciate your contribution and I am interested in hearing if you are so minded to share.  Thank you.


It is my personal belief, yes. Its in the third person because Im not currently in a situation wherein I am aligned to a cause in such a way as to breed determination. A lesser reflection of this would be, lets say, Football. World Championships, winner takes all. One team is at a slight disadvantage from the previous match. They wont be discouraged, Theyll be motivated like none other. Like I said after, I believe that We can neither confirm nor deny any given faith, so I choose to believe that its all possible, and that since theres so many faiths to choose from, I may as well praise Odin and call it a day


----------



## Steve

To say I'm an atheist would imply that I really care enough to have that belief.  I'm not religious... at all.  I have gone to churches, and I've studied and know a little about most religions.  I've read most of the religious books and enjoy them.  I think that the philosophy of religions are interesting and respect everyone's rights to their beliefs.

I don't hesitate to share with people that I'm not a xtian and I don't believe it's ever been an issue for me.  either I've never had a problem with it, or I'm too oblivious to notice.


----------



## Steve

Instructor said:


> For me it's like I meet somebody, grow to like them and respect them.  Then one day I learn they aren't a Christian.  I don't like them less because of it. On the contrary, I worry about them!  I don't want to get to heaven and not have any friends there.
> 
> I don't want anybody to go to hell.  I especially don't want a person to go if I could have stopped it somehow.  I have lost friends and sometimes I feel shame that I never spoke to them about Jesus.  What did my failure cost?



I think that's sweet, but if you brought it up every time we hung out, it would probably grow tiresome.  Kind of like if I bugged you all the time about your high cholesterol or to quit smoking.  

But if it makes you feel any better, I don't believe either of us is going to hell.


----------



## Instructor

Well if I've shown the path and you choose to walk a different one then you are taking responsibility and I am relieved of worry I guess.  Nah...I would still worry.   I just wouldn't become tiresome.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Instructor said:


> What did my failure cost?




Perhaps your friends? 
I have many religious friends, we never talk about religion in a serious way. We all know what everyone else in the group believes, so for the preservation of the friendships some things are better left unsaid. Those of us who are on the atheist side of the fence believe our religious friends believe in what are essentially fairy tales, my religious friends feel we atheists are misguided and lost and if we would only let Jesus in we would be saved. I have one older lady that insists on giving some of us bibles and religious based literature on a fairly regular basis, I know her gestures come from a kind heart and she means no ill will, but more importantly her friendship means much more to me than any potential offence I may feel. If anyone, anyone, in our group began to attempt to shove their beliefs down the throats of others, regardless of the intent, friendships would be lost, very quickly. It&#8217;s not worth it.


----------



## Instructor

In the end alienating people and losing friends is simply counterproductive.  Better to try to just be a good and loving friend.  Demonstrate faith through your example and when you fall short be honest about it.


----------



## Steve

Ah...  I don't know.  I've found that it's much more irritating in writing.  In real life, my friends who are religious tend to be far less obnoxious than those who proselytize online.  It just doesn't bother me that much.  I have a couple who bring it up fairly often, but after I smile and remind them that I don't play on that team, they knock it off.  And I don't feel any compulsion to mock them relentlessly for their belief in elves, witches, unicorns and fairies... or angels or whatever.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I think I touched on this in a different thread, but I'll try and repeat it here, especially since Jenna's curious how my heads working. 

Part of why I believe as I do comes from observation.
I look at all the different sizes, shapes and types of trees. Some flower, some fruit, some have colored leaves, some never lose their leaves. Some are short, some touch the sky.
I look at all the different types of people. Pink, red, orange, yellow, pale white, black as night and a hundred shades in between.  We're all different, in so very many ways.
They say that no 2 snow flakes are the same.
This is a world of such wonder, such variety, such variation.  We have forests, and deserts, and prairies and seas.
Such beauty.

If we are divinely created, I see that creator as one who loves that variety, because if they didn't, we would have trees that were all alike and so forth.

I see so many faiths believe in an afterlife, a heaven, a 'next phase'.  Maybe it's just desperate hope. Or maybe it's a half buried memory of a whisper that 'more awaits'.

I don't know.

But what I do believe, is that IF! we are really a Divine Creation, that our Creator's love of variety would carry over to that "Heaven", and that all of us are welcome, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc.  With all of our quirks, issues, hangups and what not.

And that the 'only true believers get in' idea is our idea, our need to "be right".

Again, that's my view. I don't ask anyone else to 'convert', or agree.

Just that if anyone feels strongly enough to burn me at the stake for heresy, that they use a renewable fuel source and an HFCS free BBQ sauce.


----------



## David43515

Jenna, when you ask so nicely how could anyone refuse? I`m a Mormon. The actual name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but everyone usually just calls us Mormons. 

I converted when I was 21, and I`m 45 now. I`ve never been shy about sharing my beliefs, but I do tend to let other people bring it up first. I like there to be a comfortable exchange of ideas with someone who`s interested instead of feeling like I`m forcing my beliefs on others who could care less. And since I looked at a lot of faiths when I was young and searching, I really enjoy hearing what other people believe.

I`d be happy to answer any questions anyone had for me, either in public or in private. I have to ask though that you remember I`m only human. I`m not the best exaample of my faith and I`d hate to think that someone was judging the church based on my behavior.


----------



## Jenna

Langenschwert said:


> Asatru.
> 
> For those who don't know what that is, it's Norse polytheism, also known as Heathenism. Some practicioners try to practice as closely as possible to historical evidence, whereas I'm more in the camp of "what would it be like today if there had been no Christianity?"
> 
> What I like about it is, there is no salvation. Humans don't need it. We are fine as we are. The idea is to be the type of person the gods would want to hang out with. We have no sacred scriptures that we consider to be divinely inspired. We know the sagas and eddas are myths. They are illustrations of how our forefathers thought about some religious issues. Since there are multiple deities, we are not so fond of damning others for their beliefs, since they could be as "right" as ours. People should worship (or not) as they see fit. As long as they don't hinder me in mine. We do not turn the other cheek. There is no commandment to worship (or even like) the gods. That's the individual's choice. The one thing a Heathen must never do is disrespect the ancestors, either his own or those of others.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


That is very interesting Mark, thank you for sharing your guiding beliefs and principles.  Do you know how far back these practices stretch?  It sounds like a very ancient form of philosophy and thought organisation.  Do you feel accompanied by your beliefs?  Or are you in some ways left to your own devices?  And what guidance do you have to, as you say, live to be the type of person the gods would want to hang out with?  How do you or followers of Heathenism discern what kind of person the gods would want to hang out with if there are no writings to that effect?  I am interested to understand.  Thank you very much for your contribution.








Gemini said:


> I offer ramblings on this. Nothing worth thanks or response I think.
> 
> I have to say I believe in God, but have no idea why. I'm inclined to think it has more to do with years of ingraining and less to do with any practical reason, which is an essential element for me to process. There are just too many practical reasons denying the existence of a single superior entity. But still I do. Go figure.
> 
> It completely evades me as to why people would argue about, much less kill for, a religion or religious point of view, yet throughout history, it's probably the number one reason for premature death of men, and yet through thousands of years of existence, we have not "evolved" one bit. Because I don't really care what others believe, I just can't see myself getting upset by their religious views. It's totally lost on me. Go in peace. Really. So I ask myself why did I read though, and then respond to this entire thread. Because though it's not worth much, it offers a different (if not cloudy) perspective I suppose.
> 
> I have great respect for those who are firm in their beliefs. Even jealous at times I think.
> 
> It annoys the crap out of me when people "praise God" or "praise Allah" or whoever when they experience a moment of good fortune like winning a game or something equally trivial in matters of the universe. I'm pretty sure if there is an almighty entity, he/she/it has bigger issues. To assume "it's all about us" is simple arrogance. Hey! God created 14,000 new galaxies today and still found time to make sure I won a free coke in the McDonald's scratch off! Praise God! I want to vomit.
> 
> I always enjoy listening to the Dalai Lama, though Buddhism has never called me. He always makes me happy and I would love to see through his eyes just once.
> 
> I do not practice a religion. In days gone by, I would tell people i'm not religious, I'm a Christian. I don't want people praying for me. I'm not broken; I'm in transit. To where, I have no idea, but I know there's a place for me. Do not solicit me with your religion, I'll shut right down. Your path is not mine. It's the only thing about religion that I am sure about. At least today.


Well I am grateful to have your opinions and thoughts, they are valid and worthwhile and I appreciate you sharing here.  It is beyond me also why there is so much antipathy between followers of faiths, most of which have peace at their core.  Perhaps that is a reflection of a lack of internalisation of those core values?  I am grateful that you read through this thread and if it has given you cause to think of your own motivations then that must be good also.  To assume as you say, it is all about us, is a very egocentric view of events.  If we did not have that egocentric view of events I think events would not cause us so much annoyance or disruption when they are unfavourable.  Still, we have only our own perceptions, that is why I think it is enlightening to experience the view of others   And I wonder has Buddhism never called you or have you simply not been available to receive that call?  To me religions are a marketing vehicle for a relationship with God and but then to me there is only one God by many names over many traditions.  I think that is the truest secret veiled by the group-minded, factionalist, controlling writings of Man.  For me then the question of which religion is not important.  The only question that is important is would I value a relationship with God.  Thank you again for posting, I am grateful to you.








Sandanchris said:


> I am a Christian, have been since my early teens. Looked at a lot of other "religions" but realized I needed a relationship with God and not "religion"! I currently serve as the assistant pastor at Trinity Baptist In Downey, Ca and love every day I get to serve hurting and lost people!


Thank you for this.  I can appreciate your viewpoint.  I think sometimes it is necessary to cut through any potentially manmade dogma to reach a purer relationship with God.  Would you mind if I asked you do you see any themes that would join disparate religious viewpoints or is it a case of those various minds and cultures never meeting?  How would you like to see the people of the earth in a perfect setting?  Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.








Bob Hubbard said:


> I like the imagery. Has a bit of a 'Native American' vibe to it I think, Apache-ish maybe.
> 
> I have faith in my friends, faith in myself. In Gods, not so much. I see too much suffering of innocents to believe the Gods care too much about mundane things.
> 
> With the buffet idea, I try everything, but I have my favorites. I grew up in a Christian family, so my 'core' is 'tainted'/'imprinted' with those values. Just like having grown up with NY-Polish tastes, I find the food of other places 'different', sometimes extremely so. I think comparing religions to foods is apt. Take cheese for example. NY and Wisconsin are famous for their cheeses, as is Italy. But to a desert bushman in Africa, it's disgusting. To eat spoiled milk? Yuk! Because that's what cheese is...old spoiled milk thats fermented. (oversimplification). Comparing some religions is like talking cheese with someone who has a cultural dislike to it.
> 
> By the same token, the art comparison is also fitting. Some go the 'dabble, mix and match route'. Others focus intently on 1.
> Both are valid, both work. Just different approaches for different folks.
> 
> I'm an expert in web design, photography, photoshop and complaining about the TSA.
> In all other things, I'm but a learner.
> 
> The 'shiny' I find is the common threads. Most religions exist for guide you. To give you rules to live by. To offer explanations for 'things that go bump in the night'. To give hope that there's 'more' than what we have. To support and console you during trying times. That's the 'shiny' I see. I think too much to 'believe' in the 'superstition'. For all my prayer, I've never heard a reply. Despite my 'logic' sometimes I do pray. Maybe I got answers but am too hard of hearing, or heart, to hear them. Dunno.
> 
> But I've never felt Gods presence in a church. Ever. I felt it walking in the woods, alone, listening to the birds. Look at my nature shots....you'll see God in there.
> 
> And I say God, I might say Gods, I might say Goddess. It's all interchangeable as I don't think we can see deity, except in the corner of our eyes when we least expect it.
> 
> And I mock it all, religiously as it were. Because I think any being that could create all this wonder, all this diversity, all this magnificence, has to have a sense of humor. I think we're proof of that warped sense of humor. Because if I'm wrong, the world would be a lot less pleasant for a lot more of us, and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
> 
> I might be right, I might be wrong. Maybe the Jews are right after all....or maybe the Babylonians they took half their scripture from were right, or maybe the Sumatrians who the Babylonians stole from were....I'll find out when I die. Until then, I wander, sample, taste, and experience as much as I can.
> 
> Make sense?


I think native American peoples have a very steadfast system of belief in deities.  I think it is a very serene way of grounding yet with the capacity to completely liberate.  And but you have faith in other things besides God(s)?  Is it the case that we put our faith wherever we feel it will be most secure?  I think you have good fortune with you to have friends that are solid and a level of self-reliance that is serving you well.  I understand how you can trust a faith in these things.  I think that suffering of innocents is a very difficult idea to rationalise.  I can say that much suffering is caused by Man and then you can argue yes and but God can intervene to stop it.  You can say that a little newborn has a heart condition that means she cannot thrive for more than a few days and you know my faith would give me no words except useless platitude.  I think we like to have answers.  That is our nature and that is our culture and our society.  Everything is pinned down neatly.  Every phenomena is explainable.  And yet that is the essence of faith to believe in what is not proven; it is to believe in what can be felt and what can be known (of the unknown) with assurance, as paradoxical as that is.  I believe this is why you, and many others, have faith in your friends and yourself because like the rest of us, you are seeking a place for assurance that you can trust in the outcomes of future events?  I will not preach.  

I agree with your food analogy and but I think religion is not God just as particular cuisines in their variants are not the same as nourishment.  You can come to God through religion or you can come to God without religion.  You can gan nourishment by a certain Polish-NY cuisine (I would love to know what that is btw ) or you can gain nourishment by going into your garden and eating leaves, shrooms and berries.  Or killing a rabbit whichever suits your palate.  

Again, it is not for me to make up a mind.  You have considerably more experience with these things than me, that is obvious.  And you are an expert in certain disciplines.  You have stuck with these things and become proficient at them.  There is a reason you have done this.  It is because there is a perception of gain for you from these things, whether that is enjoyment, happiness, status, financial reward, or whatever that might be.  I think at times though, we can feel gratified by our activities and expertises without realising that what we are seeking through these is not only happiness or financial reward etc. and but it is in a wider context, meaning and validation for our own existence.  I think that is a very big idea to contemplate.  I have noticed lately that some celebrity people are so fancy and famous and enamoured of theirselves that they feel validation by the rest of the world.  I think these are the people that are hit hardest when they realise that it is all a sham.  That they can be dropped in a finger click and that realisation puts them towards substances and psychoses.  My point is that we are all seeking validation for our own existence, sometimes we find it through our expertises, our loves, our families and friends and wealth and but those are fickle things and apt to vanishing.  As a child of God I believe you are automatically validated.  

And for all your prayer you have never heard a reply?  God has never heard your prayer and has never once given to you what you required?  You have nothing to be happy for?  I am sorry if that is the case.  Life is not perfect, things could always be better.  That none of your prayers have been answered, I cannot doubt if you say.  I would only wonder that if you seized the records of your praying and re-examined them with the mind of a prosecution defence that perhaps evidence to the contrary might turn up.  I do not know.  Perhaps not.

Does God have a sense of humour?  I believe that every day when I wake up and look at my hair in the mirror 

Is god trying to tell you something in all your travels through faith, Bob?  I do not know.  Seek and ye shall find it is true.  I have often sought my car keys in every place, under piles of socks (not mine! I am the tidier) and pizza (not mine, there is only one person in the flat likes pineapple and it is not me!) and when all along the keys are on the hall table - of course I usually only discover that the keys where there under my nose after I have come home from standing all day on the sweaty tube amongst people with dandruff and garlic breath as if they feared a imminent vampyre invasion.  And who would protect them from THAT, huh?  Not garlic!  And certainly not Keanu Reeves.








Ken Morgan said:


> I haven&#8217;t read through all the proceeding pages, but I&#8217;ve read enough to see the path this thread is taking. An adult discussion on a subject that can be volatile, nice to see.
> 
> I was christened Church of Ireland, but being six months old, I likely didn&#8217;t protest my objections too loudly. I&#8217;m sure I was happy to be dry, well feed and well rested, kinda like how I feel these days!! It&#8217;s odd, I see the CofI as part of my heritage, part of where my family comes from, part of my family history, it is a part of who I am. Though today, and for the past, 30+ years I have identified myself as an atheist.
> 
> I am also a libertarian, as such I want to leave people alone, in return, I also wish to be left alone. If people want to believe in a religion, have fun with that. The problems in my eyes start arising when people let their children die because they refuse medical treatment for them, push their beliefs, (even lack of beliefs), on others, want tax breaks because they believe in X and attend X church. Everyone has to journey down a specific path in life, it&#8217;s up to you to sit back and take stock of the path you have chosen, if it&#8217;s religion, fine, if it&#8217;s not religion, fine, just start down that path with your eyes open. If you find you&#8217;ve chosen the wrong path, back up, and take another one, there is no correct way, just leave everyone else alone to walk down the path they have so chosen. ( Yes it&#8217;s much more complicated than this, but I&#8217;m feeling metaphysical today!)


Thank you for sharing these things Ken.  I had friends who were originally CoI.  I think it is a denomination with much tradition and paraphernalia to the extent that I felt they spent a deal of time wrangling with the expectations of the church and almost missed what was at the core.  That is just my opinion.  

I agree with you that religion is often a self-appointed arbiter of moral righteousness.  I do not believe that fits with our society as it is.  I think religion in all its vehement variants is operating on very much the back-foot now and acts aggressively like any cornered fighter would.  I think this is a self-condemning state of affairs.  For me, I wish the central values of faith were put on display, rather than the competing doctrines of religion forced upon everyone.  I think that is no way to win hearts and minds.  I cannot disagree with your viewpoint.  I like that you are feeling metaphysical.  If you can relate the metaphysical to the grounded mundanities of our day to day reality then that will help us all to move in the right direction  I think we need a measure of both, do you not?  We live as corporeal bags of meat.  Yet we have a capacity to think in ways that seem to almost deny that corporeal existence as "the only thing there is".  I do not know if you ever feel that way?  I appreciate your contribution, thank you very much.








Sukerkin said:


> No coercion, dear lady :bows:. I sometimes speak of what I should not but I am seldom having my arm twisted when I do so .
> 
> Again, you are preceptive when you say that there is an awkwardness that arises from what I am convinced is true and what my father would have me believe (and how 'mule-headed', to use the American phrase, that can make me at times on this subject).
> 
> As to how I came to determine Atheism was the stance descriptive of my view of the universe; well, until very few years ago I have consistently titled myself as Agnostic. There was nothing to suggest that there was a creator deity but likewise nothing that explicitly precluded there being one either. As our knowledge increases, the space available for what is sometimes referred to as "The God of the Gaps" shrinks. I am more convinced now than I have ever been that the evolution of both the magnificent universe and the magnificent brain that sits inside our skulls are being explained to such a satisfactory extent that the requirement for a supernatural component is diminished to close to zero.
> 
> As to my fathers motivation, it is altruistic in that he truly believes I am condemning myself by my rejection of God and he seeks to 'save' me. What he has never come to see is that, if the God he believes in is so small minded as to punish me for non-belief in an environment where there is no evidence of his existence, then, even if such a deity existed, I would withhold my veneration from it.


Ah you are as complex as I had imagined!!  and but thank you for sharing these things, I am grateful to be able to bear witness.  And I can understand that you have gradually switched your former view of God, through agnosticism (which I often think is the only logical truth) to atheism.  That makes sense.  In my experience I think you are far from alone in this pattern of thought.  Again I would not seek to argue with that as that would be facile and presumptuous.  I am just grateful to understand.  Thank you.

And I am sorry that you are subjected to awkwardness.  Do you think there are any areas of intersection between your worldview and that of your father?  You are very logical and methodical I think, no? And so to determine the common ground upon which you can both stand I think is not beyond your skill.  I am glad you can see his altrusim.  I know sometimes as parents we act in our own interest and not that of our children.  In this case I am happy that your father has your back even if he is not able to synchronise with you on your wavelength.  I wonder can I ask what for you Suke would be the best possible outcome in your opinion between you two?  If you could wave a magick wand I mean   Thank you again my friend.







Buka said:


> My mom wanted to start taking me to church when I was five. My dad told her, "Bring him to a different church each week and let him decide where he wants to go." So she did. Each week we would go to a different place of worship. A Synagogue one week, a Catholic church the next, a Protestant, Baptist, etc etc. This went on for two years. It was a lot of fun for a little kid. They were all nice places and the people were nice to us. A lot of the places had really neat windows.
> Then, I decided to go with the faith that all the other little kids I hung around with belonged to. But I felt at home in any place of worship so sometimes I went to other places.
> 
> I've found that religions are somewhat similar to Karate schools. The other guy is always the infidel.


Wow, what a progressive family experience you had.  I am impressed with the openness that your parents displayed in matters of your religious education.  I think that is wonderful and quite rare in my experience at least.  I think that you felt at home in any place of worship rather than being happier without any of them is intriguing as well.  And you settled for the one that your pals attended.  And has that changed since can I ask?

Karate schools have a job of differentiation I think, otherwise custom from one dojo could waft to another dojo and the owner would suffer.  They make theirselves and their offerings different to cater for different needs and tastes and "ways".  Yet where you to spar with another karateka from an infidel dojo, perhaps you would hug or at least shake hands in the spirit of camaraderie realising you are both after the same goal   Thank you for sharing these thoughts and experiences.  I am grateful to you.








Instructor said:


> I couldn't say, perhaps its just closed mindedness on both sides. For example though I am a Christian I often read the works about the Tao. Zen is appealing to me. Many of my Christian brethren would say some pretty rotten stuff about my interest. However I can find tons of passages in the Bible that are very Zen!
> 
> Plenty of horrors have been done in the name of Christianity such as baptism by the sword. One thing that separates us from many other religions is we feel that Jesus is literally the only way to heaven. It automatically excludes all other paths. I feel we should be tolerant of others and their ways but for a couple of thousand years most Christian sects look on all other ideas with disregard. In fact sometimes we turn on each other such as Protestant v.s. Catholic violence. On the whole, not a very tolerant group.
> 
> I am a Protestant who studies Zen and attends a Catholic College. The world takes all kinds of people and I believe that God and Jesus loves them all.


I am sorry that some of your brethren are disparaging of your interest in learning.  I think at times that is exactly as you say, closed minded.  I think it is interesting to me that you have found similarities between biblical texts and Zen passages.  I think often the significance of these shared themes is ignored per the dictates of our own faiths.  That is puzzling to me.

Regarding tolerance, yes I have seen religious intolerance even within Christianity.  As people do we like to differentiate?  Do we differentiate more than we seek commonality?  Ultimately are we not all human seeking to find meaning for ourselves?  That is my position anyway.  And but that is to be negative I think.  For me if I am to acknowledge the negative things then I must at least also acknowledge the good things and not take those for granted.  As long as I am still around and able to type, today is a good day  I hope you are well in your part of the world.  It is sunny here.  And hot!  In March that is rare.  I like the heat and the sunshine.  Tell me how you are today, yes?








Cyriacus said:


> It is my personal belief, yes. Its in the third person because Im not currently in a situation wherein I am aligned to a cause in such a way as to breed determination. A lesser reflection of this would be, lets say, Football. World Championships, winner takes all. One team is at a slight disadvantage from the previous match. They wont be discouraged, Theyll be motivated like none other. Like I said after, I believe that We can neither confirm nor deny any given faith, so I choose to believe that its all possible, and that since theres so many faiths to choose from, I may as well praise Odin and call it a day



Dear cyriacus, I am shamed to admit to you that your replies reflect my lack of understanding.  Am I correct in saying that you adopt a faith whenever you feel some external impetus (perhaps unfavourable) in your life?  I understand if that is true.  And that seems as valid a faith as any in my eyes.  And you adopt whichever faith you feel suits the task?  Is this correct?  You have no static faith?  I am interested in learning how faith works for you that is why I am asking  I hope you are well today.  






Steve said:


> To say I'm an atheist would imply that I really care enough to have that belief. I'm not religious... at all. I have gone to churches, and I've studied and know a little about most religions. I've read most of the religious books and enjoy them. I think that the philosophy of religions are interesting and respect everyone's rights to their beliefs.
> 
> I don't hesitate to share with people that I'm not a xtian and I don't believe it's ever been an issue for me. either I've never had a problem with it, or I'm too oblivious to notice.


Steve, you sound happy and content.  I think there is no reason why you would need to have a belief in any god.  I appreciate your tolerant approach to faith.  Can I ask please, do you feel your tolerance has ever been taken advantage of?  I am grateful to have your opinion and thoughts.  Thank you again.






David43515 said:


> Jenna, when you ask so nicely how could anyone refuse? I`m a Mormon. The actual name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but everyone usually just calls us Mormons.
> 
> I converted when I was 21, and I`m 45 now. I`ve never been shy about sharing my beliefs, but I do tend to let other people bring it up first. I like there to be a comfortable exchange of ideas with someone who`s interested instead of feeling like I`m forcing my beliefs on others who could care less. And since I looked at a lot of faiths when I was young and searching, I really enjoy hearing what other people believe.
> 
> I`d be happy to answer any questions anyone had for me, either in public or in private. I have to ask though that you remember I`m only human. I`m not the best exaample of my faith and I`d hate to think that someone was judging the church based on my behavior.


Thank you David43515, I am happy to hear about your faith.  I spent some time as a tourist in Salt Lake City (actually more time than I had bargained for and ended up in LDS Hospital lol) and but I had a lovely conversation with two lovely young people at the Temple there and I am glad you are not shy about sharing your beliefs.  As has been mentioned, there are stigmas and prejudices around all faiths and but we cannot control what other people think.  All we can do is conduct ourselves the way we feel is best.  And can I ask how your faith shapes your life in a positive way?  I think that is what I was hoping to learn when I started the thread and but I am terrible for digressing.  It is because I am more interested in connecting than sticking to topic.  I would be interested to hear how belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is helping you be the best person you can be  And you are currently in Japan also?  And does that have an impact upon your freedom to express your faith?  Thank you again for your time and for your contribution.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jenna;1475463
I think native American peoples have a very steadfast system of belief in deities.  I think it is a very serene way of grounding yet with the capacity to completely liberate.  And but you have faith in other things besides God(s)?  Is it the case that we put our faith wherever we feel it will be most secure?  I think you have good fortune with you to have friends that are solid and a level of self-reliance that is serving you well.  I understand how you can trust a faith in these things.  I think that suffering of innocents is a very difficult idea to rationalise.  I can say that much suffering is caused by Man and then you can argue yes and but God can intervene to stop it.  You can say that a little newborn has a heart condition that means she cannot thrive for more than a few days and you know my faith would give me no words except useless platitude.  I think we like to have answers.  That is our nature and that is our culture and our society.  Everything is pinned down neatly.  Every phenomena is explainable.  And yet that is the essence of faith to believe in what is not proven; it is to believe in what can be felt and what can be known (of the unknown) with assurance said:
			
		

> Makes as good a reason as anything else I think. We want comfort, and we're tangible beings. It's hard to 'trust' the intangible sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your food analogy and but I think religion is not God just as particular cuisines in their variants are not the same as nourishment.  You can come to God through religion or you can come to God without religion.  You can gan nourishment by a certain Polish-NY cuisine (I would love to know what that is btw ) or you can gain nourishment by going into your garden and eating leaves, shrooms and berries.  Or killing a rabbit whichever suits your palate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I call "Polish-NY" is traditional Polish food, Americanized by immigrants and passed down over the decades. Buffalo's got a heavy Pole influence (I swear half our streets are Polish named), and my section is heavy Polish and Irish.  So it's a lot of beers, sausages, foods I can't pronounce that are high-fat, and oh so bad for you but oh so delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not for me to make up a mind.  You have considerably more experience with these things than me, that is obvious.  And you are an expert in certain disciplines.  You have stuck with these things and become proficient at them.  There is a reason you have done this.  It is because there is a perception of gain for you from these things, whether that is enjoyment, happiness, status, financial reward, or whatever that might be.  I think at times though, we can feel gratified by our activities and expertises without realising that what we are seeking through these is not only happiness or financial reward etc. and but it is in a wider context, meaning and validation for our own existence.  I think that is a very big idea to contemplate.  I have noticed lately that some celebrity people are so fancy and famous and enamoured of theirselves that they feel validation by the rest of the world.  I think these are the people that are hit hardest when they realise that it is all a sham.  That they can be dropped in a finger click and that realisation puts them towards substances and psychoses.  My point is that we are all seeking validation for our own existence, sometimes we find it through our expertises, our loves, our families and friends and wealth and but those are fickle things and apt to vanishing.  As a child of God I believe you are automatically validated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am but a speck of dust lost in time.  When I am gone, I'm gone.  My goal is to touch as many people, to experience as much as I can, before I fade away.  MT allows me to touch people I may never meet in person. I hope that when I'm gone it survives...that will be a form of immortality for me I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for all your prayer you have never heard a reply?  God has never heard your prayer and has never once given to you what you required?  You have nothing to be happy for?  I am sorry if that is the case.  Life is not perfect, things could always be better.  That none of your prayers have been answered, I cannot doubt if you say.  I would only wonder that if you seized the records of your praying and re-examined them with the mind of a prosecution defence that perhaps evidence to the contrary might turn up.  I do not know.  Perhaps not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if God heard me, only that I didn't hear a reply, or if I did understand I was hearing it.  I'm a little deaf in my left ear.
> As to happy... I'm often not. Sometimes I'm content. Longest was about 2 hours while standing on the bow of a cruise ship with 70 mph winds hitting me. It just felt, "Good". Hard to explain it. Right now, I'm not 'unhappy', but wouldn't rate myself 'happy' either, just 'am'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does God have a sense of humour?  I believe that every day when I wake up and look at my hair in the mirror
> 
> Is god trying to tell you something in all your travels through faith, Bob?  I do not know.  Seek and ye shall find it is true.  I have often sought my car keys in every place, under piles of socks (not mine! I am the tidier) and pizza (not mine, there is only one person in the flat likes pineapple and it is not me!) and when all along the keys are on the hall table - of course I usually only discover that the keys where there under my nose after I have come home from standing all day on the sweaty tube amongst people with dandruff and garlic breath as if they feared a imminent vampyre invasion.  And who would protect them from THAT, huh?  Not garlic!  And certainly not Keanu Reeves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we're supposed to seek more.  Though not from Mr. Reeves.   But from ourselves. Even if we focus on 1 faith, we should seek to understand it more, to study it, to explore it, to experience it. It's more than an hour a week playing 'recite it back' in a special building....which I suppose can also be said about martial arts classes huh?
> 
> And, that's not knocking any of the faiths out there. I've talked, argued, and laughed with many who have dug deeper and found comfort and answers in their faiths, where I found nothing. We all see though different eyes, and stomachs, which is why pizza can have fruit on it, but I prefer mine with fungus and pepperoni.
Click to expand...


----------



## seasoned

People do not save people. There are certain times in our life where we are given opportunities to share out faith, but I don't feel we should wear our faith on out sleeve, so to speak. 

I am a Christian, there for, I fall into the ranks of the most misunderstood. My choice is to live my life as a testimony to my faith, but I don't feel it is my job to save the world.


With that said, I accepted the Lord as my personal savior, was baptized by immersion, came out of the water expecting to be a changed person, nope, I was still me.   It took me time to realize that these were just symbolic acts, to point me inward, to evaluate me as a person. 

Since I have spent 3/4 of my life as a martial artist, I tend to gage life the same way. We start out as white belts, some never get past that stage. There are some that do by rank alone, but lack depth. 

As a white belt we sometimes run around trying to explain our art, but fall short when challenged by inquisitive minds. Martial Arts as with life, takes time to mature into, and there lies the connection with a Christian walk. 

Martial Arts as with Christianity, is not for everyone, but when given the opportunity to share, I feel lives can be changed.


----------



## Jenna

Bob Hubbard said:


> Makes as good a reason as anything else I think. We want comfort, and we're tangible beings. It's hard to 'trust' the intangible sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> What I call "Polish-NY" is traditional Polish food, Americanized by immigrants and passed down over the decades. Buffalo's got a heavy Pole influence (I swear half our streets are Polish named), and my section is heavy Polish and Irish.  So it's a lot of beers, sausages, foods I can't pronounce that are high-fat, and oh so bad for you but oh so delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am but a speck of dust lost in time.  When I am gone, I'm gone.  My goal is to touch as many people, to experience as much as I can, before I fade away.  MT allows me to touch people I may never meet in person. I hope that when I'm gone it survives...that will be a form of immortality for me I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if God heard me, only that I didn't hear a reply, or if I did understand I was hearing it.  I'm a little deaf in my left ear.
> As to happy... I'm often not. Sometimes I'm content. Longest was about 2 hours while standing on the bow of a cruise ship with 70 mph winds hitting me. It just felt, "Good". Hard to explain it. Right now, I'm not 'unhappy', but wouldn't rate myself 'happy' either, just 'am'.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we're supposed to seek more.  Though not from Mr. Reeves.   But from ourselves. Even if we focus on 1 faith, we should seek to understand it more, to study it, to explore it, to experience it. It's more than an hour a week playing 'recite it back' in a special building....which I suppose can also be said about martial arts classes huh?
> 
> And, that's not knocking any of the faiths out there. I've talked, argued, and laughed with many who have dug deeper and found comfort and answers in their faiths, where I found nothing. We all see though different eyes, and stomachs, which is why pizza can have fruit on it, but I prefer mine with fungus and pepperoni.


I agree that it is difficult to trust the intangible.  I guess that faith is learning to discern what is truly intangible (the philosophy of religion is intangible) from what is tangible (that has verifiable effect perhaps?)  Having not found any tangible effect of God, I appreciate that God is not trustworthy under that lens. Ah yes Polish food as modified by the NYers, I understand.  There is some wholesome fare from Poland I think and but most of it is what I would describe as hearty  I am glad you enjoy a little decadence   I have a similar fondness that you have described in the speedboat.  I like speed.  For me it is a catharsis to be moving.  I guess that suggests I have some need for catharsis.  Perhaps at times.  Loud music that would rattle a stuttering heart works for me also   I think the martial arts analogies do work as you have described.  I am happy about that.  I think if one is to stick with one art as a major then yes it is imperative to dig.  If my shihan were to have said, no, stop deconstructing everything to find the roots of it then I would not have learned what I wanted to know.  For someone to suggest it is not good to question then either that person is insecure in their subject or they are aware at a deeper level that the entire subject is based upon a flawed premise.  I think digging is good.  I think when I dig I need to know in advance what exactly I am digging for.  Otherwise I will gain nothing except a strong back a large triceps   I think it is important when I am digging that I also know I am digging in the right place so I do not dig up a water main.  I am glad you are digging.  If you ever need another shovel or pick axe to get through something that is compacted.  Let me know   And I would agree that no fruit should be on pizzas because that is heresy against the great master of pizzas, except they have changed the rules and make out that tomatoes are fruits too.. pffft.. Not in my reckoning.  Fungus all the way.. except if it is the kind that live on feet that needs medicated ewww.. Enjoy your pizza


----------



## Tez3

I don't think atheists are lost, I don't think any other religion is the 'wrong' one and I don't want to convert anyone quite the opposite, ask me and I'll tell you to find your own way don't copy mine. I don't understand this wanting to 'share' all the time, my preferred option is mind your own business to be honest. I was told by a Rabbi long long time ago that religion is like petrol (gas to the Americans), lots of different brands but it all does the same job. Prayers, services, hymn singing is for our benefit not G-ds, we gain comfort from rituals, in a changing world we have something that doesn't change. Free will has always been granted as has forgiveness, we've been given the rules for living a good life but we've also been given the free will to chose how we live our lives. I think this is something that missing from many Christian faiths who abandoned their essentially Jewish beginnings especially as politics took over from the simple faith driven religion it started out as. Women used to have a big role, with female bishops and female disciples, that got quickly stopped and only now, a couple of thousand years later, are they debating whether to allow female bishops. Power became a big thing with Popes and Holy Roman Emperors commanding armies etc. Wars are fought in the name of religion but it's in name only, the real reasons are for wealth, land and power. If there were no religions we'd have the same wars but under different banners. 

We have a many different thoughts of belief in Judaism, questioning things is encouraged, arguing is encouraged so Christian faiths make no difference to us if only they'd leave us alone. Sikhs do, Hindus do, Buddhists do even Muslim do as far as faith is concerned and we leave them alone. My shift partner is Hindu, he has Christians targeting him to convert as well, they come round his door try to invite themselves in and generally partonise him. This is the ones who proclaim themselves 'born again', the established churches these days, the RC and C of E etc, the Methodists etc leave us alone but even they are targeted by these people! One C of E Canon I know says he has them haranging him as though he weren't a Christian! I guess he's not the 'right' sort of Christian! 

Some Christians I will praise highly and can't say enough good things about are the military padres, they *never ever *push their religion, they are a sympathetic ear for any soldier, they dispense cups of tea and wordless comfort to many a troubled person. They work on the front line and are there for everyone, they don't convert but comfort and stengthen people. They are a priceless resource.

I also have a huge amount of time for Quakers who to me are fine and good people. Always happy to be with them, who put their money where their mouths are and do some actual practical good for people instead of knocking on doors annoy them.


----------



## Instructor

I personally don't think that life is necessarily about being happy.  I think we exist for a reason but that reason is different for everybody.  Some of the people I look up to most in the Bible suffered most of their lives yet they are heroes.  I love it when I am happy but sometimes sorrow and pain can teach you important lessons.

BTW the weather is beautiful here, the bees are buzzing.


----------



## cdunn

I can see no god but the gods that man makes for himself, but I don't generally say too much about it in life. It's just net required. 

I have no particular problem with others believing as they wish, however, as a humanist, I find I have a positive duty to fight back whenever people of faith propose laws or policies that are actively harmful to people, to society, and the world, especially when they are based on facts that aren't.

And Bill ... An 'atheist get-together' tends to be about:
A: Building a peer network for personal support. The amount of that you need probably depends on how much people you would otherwise expect to rely on for emotional support tell you you're damned to hell. 
B: Discussion of science, ethics, humanism. (Unfortunately often set against the backdrop of our Christian-soaked society).
C: As a continuation of B: Discussing how to make the world a better place.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> I don't think atheists are lost, I don't think any other religion is the 'wrong' one and I don't want to convert anyone quite the opposite, ask me and I'll tell you to find your own way don't copy mine.



Some friends of mine who converted to Judaism were discouraged at every step along the path; they had to fight to get in.  So it's kind of a different mindset.  I get it; I'm not saying it's wrong.  Heck, the Marines are the same way.  You have to prove yourself to us, not the other way around.

Christianity has a problem in that its teachings require Christians to share the 'Good News' of Christ with others, to witness in public and to proselytize.  Some branches of Christianity take it more seriously than others, and some individuals take it more seriously than others.

And it can be a problem in the sense that people don't particularly care to be preached to, or to have strangers knocking at their door and handing out literature and trying to convert them.  I get that too; I don't like it either (and I don't proselytize, even though I am supposed to witness, like all Catholics).

However, we also have that pesky First Amendment in the USA.  Along with ensuring that there is separation between Church and State (as it has come to interpreted), it also prevents the government from infringing on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Which means, like it or not, people can knock on your door and try to preach to you.  Part of living in a free society; you have to put up with being annoyed from time to time (in the USA, that is).

As to atheists, I also do not think they are lost.  I have no more idea what is going on than they do.  I choose to believe, but I'm well aware that my choices could and probably are incorrect in many minor or major details; perhaps even completely wrong.  I'm good with that.

However, some atheists (and I do not mean all, just some) treat atheism as if it were itself a religion.  That is, it is a core belief for them.   Not only is there no proof FOR the existence of a God or Gods, there is no proof against them.  There simply isn't any scientific evidence either way.  The most that this can possibly 'prove' in a scientific way is that the answer is unknown at this time.  We only know that we do not know.  Some atheists inside that science proves there is no God.  Balderdash.  Science may well prove that Christianity (or any other flavor of religion) is unlikely in the extreme, given what we know about the origins of the universe, but it cannot and does not prove that there was no supernatural 'original cause' for the universe that one might call a God.  

The fact that a thing has never been witnessed does not mean it does not exist.  For example, the Higg's Boson.  Now we are close to proving that it does exist.  When we have proven it, will it suddenly exist, whereas before it did not exist?  No, if indeed it does exist, it was there all along.  It won't be a new thing; it will be a new discovery of something that has always existed.  If we cannot prove the existence of a Creator, does that mean that it is not possible for a Creator to exist? No, it does not.  Atheists who insist the opposite are doing so on faith, and faith is religion.  One can say that the existence of a Creator remains unproven, and that the likelihood of proving such a thing is extremely small.  That is not the same as saying a Creator cannot exist.

I will say this about atheists.  If, when I die, I simply cease to exist, then I will not have the ability to admit I was wrong about religion, nor will they be able to 'neener neener' me from their own graves.  If, however, I awaken in some kind of afterlife, I will laugh my *** off at the atheists.  My bet that religion exists has a payoff.  Theirs has none (Pascal's Wager).


----------



## Tez3

I know someone who converted to Judaism and a bigger pain in the **** you couldn't imagine. Talking to a Catholic padre not so long ago who agreed with me that people who convert are the ones who are holier than thou, who follow every single instruction etc to the letter and generally make those who are 'native' to that religion feel uncomfortable! This woman, made her husband and children convert, drove us all mad with the constant pernickity details she would go into, she decided they had had to make Aliyah and be 'proper' Israelis! her husband gave up his career with the RAF ( he was an engineer with eh Red Arrows) and trotted off. We got to the stage where we almost avoided her because all she went on about was this custom that custom and making us feel inadequate.
There was a Jewish guy who converted years ago to Catholicism, he became a priest then a bishop, guess he was still following his mothers advice lol!


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> *
> 
> What he was ws Jewish. Xtianity does not start until well after his death.
> 
> I think Christians would say that as evidenced by our name, Christianity started with Christ.  But you are right that according to the Bible, Christians were first called such at Antioch.
> 
> But it is anti-semitic. What most Xtians don't understand is that Jews and Judaism exist as one. When you try to convert Jews, you are destroying us as a people. Judaism is not something that is tacked on t our nationality/peoplehood. It is what we are.
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I just have trouble accepting it.  Peter and Paul maintained they were Jews even though accepting Christ as the Messiah, and therefore being Christians.
> 
> Interesting question, it hinges on how you capitalize messianic. All Jews are messianic. I pray for the arrival of the Messiah daily. What is an Oxymoron are Messianic Jews. "Jews" who believe that Jesus was the Messiah. There is no such thing. If you believe Jesus was the Messiah, you are a Xtian. Organizations like Jews for Jesus are all Xtian organization. They prey on the unafialated, sometimes alienated Jews. They setup shop near universities, where young Jews, sometimes rebelious against their parents can be targeted. In my city, they first set up in an area with a heavy concentration of Russian Jews. Recent Russian immigrants tend to be uneducated about Judaism, and are easy prey to the Jewish trappings of "Messianic synagogues".
> 
> I'm sorry but what you have said above seems contradictory, so I ask that you explain so I can understand please.  In your second paragraph above you say that Jews and judaism are one.  In the paragraph just above this you say that if you believe Jesus was the Messiah you are a Christian (therefore seeming no longer a Jew).  How does one cease to be Jewish simply by accepting Jesus as the Messiah?  As I mentioned, many in the Bible did not think they ceased to be Jewish.  There were many who maintained they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but insisted on following all the laws of Judaism they had been raised with.
> 
> Tribal affiliation has largely been lost. The only tribal knowledge that has been passed down are from Levi. Both Levites and Cohens, the priests. Everybody else is now just called Yisroel.*


*

That must be a little disheartening to people who put so much stock in tradition (tradition isn't bad btw).  But if all tribal affiliations have been lost, that seems to present a problem.  How will you recognize the Messiah since He is to be of the tribe of Judah?

I really do want to thank you and Tez3 for enlightening me and others of your religious beliefs and culture.  In fact Jesus was a Jew, Christianity started in Israel from Jewish roots, and we also believe in the Old Testament, and for those reasons I think I should know more about it.  Thanks again both of you.*


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I see what you are saying.  I just have trouble accepting it.  Peter and Paul maintained they were Jews even though accepting Christ as the Messiah, and therefore being Christians.



They can maintain what they want. Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not meet the first xriteria, being of the line of David.




> I'm sorry but what you have said above seems contradictory, so I ask that you explain so I can understand please.  In your second paragraph above you say that Jews and judaism are one.  In the paragraph just above this you say that if you believe Jesus was the Messiah you are a Christian (therefore seeming no longer a Jew).  How does one cease to be Jewish simply by accepting Jesus as the Messiah?  As I mentioned, many in the Bible did not think they ceased to be Jewish.  There were many who maintained they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but insisted on following all the laws of Judaism they had been raised with.




It's simple. The Messiah has not come yet. Belief in Jesus is against what Judaism teaches. Therefore, you can't believe Jesus is the messiah and still practice Judaism. People can believe what they want, non-Jews do not define Judaism, we do. You call call a cat a dog, but it's still a cat



> That must be a little disheartening to people who put so much stock in tradition (tradition isn't bad btw).  But if all tribal affiliations have been lost, that seems to present a problem.  How will you recognize the Messiah since He is to be of the tribe of Judah?



The Messiah will be of the line of David. When he comes, he will be able to prove it by his actions.



> I really do want to thank you and Tez3 for enlightening me and others of your religious beliefs and culture.  In fact Jesus was a Jew, Christianity started in Israel from Jewish roots, and we also believe in the Old Testament, and for those reasons I think I should know more about it.  Thanks again both of you.



Get a copy of either the JPS or Artscroll translations of Tanach. Preferably with commentaries. You will get a good idea of what we are about. It's hard to explain, our religion, laws and history are intertwined. You can teach your children the history of your ethnicity or nationality without touching on religion. I can't teach my kids Jewish history without touching on things like the Exodus.

As a side note, can you reply with multi quotes like everyone else? it makes hard to properly reply to you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

cdunn said:


> And Bill ... An 'atheist get-together' tends to be about:
> A: Building a peer network for personal support. The amount of that you need probably depends on how much people you would otherwise expect to rely on for emotional support tell you you're damned to hell.
> B: Discussion of science, ethics, humanism. (Unfortunately often set against the backdrop of our Christian-soaked society).
> C: As a continuation of B: Discussing how to make the world a better place.



Fair enough.  But as regards "A" above...I hear that a lot.  _"You people keep telling me I'm damned to Hell!"_  Well, some people may say that.  I don't.  So it's OK to give me grief about my religion because of what I do NOT do to you?  Nice.

Then I get, _"Well, your precious BOOK tells me I'm damned to Hell!"_  OK, if it says that, it says that.  A) What do you want me to do about it, I didn't write it, and B) If my religion is bogus, what do YOU care what it says about you?

Then I usually get a couple quotes from Scripture showing where my _"precious BOOK"_ indeed damns unbelievers to Hell.  All I can do is say sorry that bothers you.  I can't change what it says.  I could argue that being "damned to Hell" in some cases is interpreted to mean _"being cast into the Lake of Fire,"_ while in other cases it appears to mean simply _"being separated from God for eternity."_  But I seldom do that - actually I never do it anymore - because as Tez noted, somebody always wants to tell you what your own religion orders you to believe.  _"NO!  YOU HATE ME AND WANT ME IN HELL BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO!"_

OK, fine.

One thing I have never done is seek out atheists to tell them they are wrong, they are going to Hell, or that I'm better than them.  I simply don't care!

But it doesn't seem to stop SOME atheists from puking up their hatred on me at every opportunity.  I get that they hate religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Yay them.  Leave me the hell alone and we'll be just fine.  But no, they harass me to scream at me about how much I harass them.  Never really got that part.


----------



## cdunn

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough.  But as regards "A" above...I hear that a lot.  _"You people keep telling me I'm damned to Hell!"_  Well, some people may say that.  I don't.  So it's OK to give me grief about my religion because of what I do NOT do to you?  Nice.Then I get, _"Well, your precious BOOK tells me I'm damned to Hell!"_  OK, if it says that, it says that.  A) What do you want me to do about it, I didn't write it, and B) If my religion is bogus, what do YOU care what it says about you?Then I usually get a couple quotes from Scripture showing where my _"precious BOOK"_ indeed damns unbelievers to Hell.  All I can do is say sorry that bothers you.  I can't change what it says.  I could argue that being "damned to Hell" in some cases is interpreted to mean _"being cast into the Lake of Fire,"_ while in other cases it appears to mean simply _"being separated from God for eternity."_  But I seldom do that - actually I never do it anymore - because as Tez noted, somebody always wants to tell you what your own religion orders you to believe.  _"NO!  YOU HATE ME AND WANT ME IN HELL BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO!"_OK, fine.One thing I have never done is seek out atheists to tell them they are wrong, they are going to Hell, or that I'm better than them.  I simply don't care!But it doesn't seem to stop SOME atheists from puking up their hatred on me at every opportunity.  I get that they hate religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Yay them.  Leave me the hell alone and we'll be just fine.  But no, they harass me to scream at me about how much I harass them.  Never really got that part.


It's not when you spec do it that it's a problem. Or even some random person on some message board... As has already happened in this very thread, one notes. It's when your own parents do it. It's when your boss does it. It's when presidential candidates tell you you can't be a good citizen. Does it exist? Certainly. I'm sorry you feel tarred, but some will fire in all directions when surrounded. These are the beliefs we are regularly confronted with.


----------



## Jenna

I do not know if anyone is reading and but if I could ask *a general question*, I would ask, if there was someone out there wandering the plains of the internet looking into this thread and undecided about which path through faith or around it might suit them best, do you think the discussions here would assist them with their decision?

Does it help *you*, does it reveal anything, or is everything you need to know on the subject already known to you to your satisfaction?

Is anything clearer?  Or is everything as it was?

Thank you.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hi Jenna,

I was raised in a conservative Catholic family.  My parents are quite devout, a couple of my brothers are as well, and I and my younger brother are definitely not.  As soon as I left home for school I stopped attending services and actively distanced myself from it.  I would only attend services out of respect for my parents if I was visiting them, as I don't see them often and I wasn't interested in starting unnecessary arguments and hurt feelings.

Lately, as I've entered my 4th decade on this earth, I've stopped playing that game as well.  When my parents come to visit me, I make sure they can attend services when they wish, and I am happy to meet up with them afterwards.  I make no pretenses about attending with them.  I know that my mother prays for me, and feels I should do things differently.  I refused to be confirmed when I was a teenager, and that was a big fight that I had with my parents.  My mother sometimes brings it up and "encourages" me to get confirmed.  I will not.

I don't know quite what I believe, but I see the Church, or any formalized religion as an attempt by humans to understand the mysterious, and that formalized institution simply doesn't cut it for me.  So I do not engage in it.

I have some notions of what the big mystery may be, but I have no proof nor theology for it, it's just my own perception, elements of reincarnation/afterlife/repeated lifetimes, possibly driven by a higher power, something I cannot nail down exactly but rather a sense of what might be going on.  But I have zero proof, either for or against it, I'll never know until I die and then I will find out.


----------



## Jenna

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Jenna,
> 
> I was raised in a conservative Catholic family.  My parents are quite devout, a couple of my brothers are as well, and I and my younger brother are definitely not.  As soon as I left home for school I stopped attending services and actively distanced myself from it.  I would only attend services out of respect for my parents if I was visiting them, as I don't see them often and I wasn't interested in starting unnecessary arguments and hurt feelings.
> 
> Lately, as I've entered my 4th decade on this earth, I've stopped playing that game as well.  When my parents come to visit me, I make sure they can attend services when they wish, and I am happy to meet up with them afterwards.  I make no pretenses about attending with them.  I know that my mother prays for me, and feels I should do things differently.  I refused to be confirmed when I was a teenager, and that was a big fight that I had with my parents.  My mother sometimes brings it up and "encourages" me to get confirmed.  I will not.
> 
> I don't know quite what I believe, but I see the Church, or any formalized religion as an attempt by humans to understand the mysterious, and that formalized institution simply doesn't cut it for me.  So I do not engage in it.
> 
> I have some notions of what the big mystery may be, but I have no proof nor theology for it, it's just my own perception, elements of reincarnation/afterlife/repeated lifetimes, possibly driven by a higher power, something I cannot nail down exactly but rather a sense of what might be going on.  But I have zero proof, either for or against it, I'll never know until I die and then I will find out.


Hello Michael and thank you for your contribution.  I'm grateful to learn a bit about your journey through faith.  I sometimes wonder if formalised institution as you have put it is the right place to understand the mysterious?  I often think efforts are made within large religions to actively suppress inquisitiveness.  Do you ever feel that?  

I think notions of the infinite, of God and of hereafter can only be taken on faith as there is no proof of anything, and for me this knowledge can only be discerned on an individual basis.  I think to have no faith one obviously accepts a fixed termination point, and that is acceptable to many.  To have a faith is to accept a transition point to whatever that faith advises and that is acceptable for many others.  I think that area of neither is a result of our lives and our societies and the actions of others good and not so good.  If you say you have notions Michael, is there no way you can gain for yourself satisfactory experiential knowledge of the virtue of those notions?  You are saying you will take your notions to the grave and but I wonder is there no way to strengthen your faith in whatever form it is that you can have assurance?  I do not know.  I hear you are saying you are 4 decades yet I think you know you have statistically lots and lots of decades left and perhaps assurance in your personal faith is no priority, I understand this.  I only wish you well.  Can I ask please why did you refuse confirmation as a teenager?  What made you decide it was not for you at that age?  Again, thank you for sharing so generously as you have done, I appreciate you posting.


----------



## ballen0351

I once was one the the Atheist that Bill speaks of.  I would go out of my way to make fun of Christians or other religious people  more jokingly then hateful but still mean none the less.  I would never quote the Bible to them because I thought it was a made up had had no meaning.  i thought they were too stupid to see the real world.  I saw too many evil and terrible things in my life to believe there could be a god.  Going all the way back to when i was 12 a class mate and friend of mine lived 6 houses down from me killed his parents and sister one day with a base ball bat.  Ive seen friends gunned down in training accidents in the Marine Corp.  Watched recruits shoot themselves when I was a range instructor on Parris Island.  Then I became a Police Officer and saw how truly evil people can be to eachother and thought there is no way a god would allow this to happen to his people. I was totally against it all i couldnt understand it.  I stuck with this for most of my life.  Then about 2 years ago I dont know why or what happened but I just started to see Gods calling.  It started out small and slowly.  I started to recall several times in my life where I should have been killed, shot, stabbed, and I wasnt for some fluke reason.  Case in point I knocked on a door once to serve a warrant on the home owner.  Just as I knocked for some reason my badge just fell off my shirt Im not sure how but it did so As I bent down to pick it up the home owner shot thru the door.  Had I been standing up it would have hit me in the head.  At the time I blamed my seatbelt on undoing the badge clasp and lifting it out of my shirt but now Im not so sure.  I recalled others that shoudl have died but didnt. From there it went to getting a new rental car for work and in the CD player was a CD of a pastor giving a sermon. I listen to it for some reason.  From there I was introduced to people in my life that were of strong religious faith and they were not pushy but they allowed me to ask question and answered them.  Then out of the blue my wife asked that we start going to church which I was against and refused for a while as she went with the kids.  Then I started to go to support her but sat in the back with a major attitude.  Over time I started to listen to the Pastor and one day I dont know what happened I feel like I woke up.  Everything jsut seemed brighter and more alive.  I know it shoulds stupid but I actually felt like a weight was lifted off my shoulders.  I cant explain it but I decided to join my church and started to pray.  Im still very new to all of this so its very exciting and I learn more and more every day.  But Im happy and it has changed my behavior, my outlook on life, my relationship with my wife and kids.  i would never try to change anyones mind mainly because I dont think you can.  Your relationship with God is a personal one and in time You will make your own choice even if it takes God smacking you up side the head a few times saying hey fool Ive been here all along.


----------



## Flying Crane

Jenna said:


> Hello Michael and thank you for your contribution. I'm grateful to learn a bit about your journey through faith. I sometimes wonder if formalised institution as you have put it is the right place to understand the mysterious? I often think efforts are made within large religions to actively suppress inquisitiveness. Do you ever feel that?



I do see this, or at least I see a sense of "this is what it all means" and while dialog and discussion and even doubt is usually welcome, it is welcome only if it leads back to the formal position of the Church.  I'm just not convinced that the Church, the institution built by People, has discovered all the answers.  While they have perhaps discovered many answers that are good, I don't believe that anyone holds the monopoly on the divine or the mysterious.  And some of the Church's positions on things I absolutely disagree with.



> I think notions of the infinite, of God and of hereafter can only be taken on faith as there is no proof of anything, and for me this knowledge can only be discerned on an individual basis. I think to have no faith one obviously accepts a fixed termination point, and that is acceptable to many. To have a faith is to accept a transition point to whatever that faith advises and that is acceptable for many others. I think that area of neither is a result of our lives and our societies and the actions of others good and not so good. If you say you have notions Michael, is there no way you can gain for yourself satisfactory experiential knowledge of the virtue of those notions? You are saying you will take your notions to the grave and but I wonder is there no way to strengthen your faith in whatever form it is that you can have assurance? I do not know. I hear you are saying you are 4 decades yet I think you know you have statistically lots and lots of decades left and perhaps assurance in your personal faith is no priority, I understand this. I only wish you well.



I actually do have notions that something comes after this life, I just cannot hold up proof of what these notions are.  I find that if there is a just deity of some sort, one that has created us and actually loves us, then it's a weird notion that we have simply one lifetime to "get it right", and if we fail we may spend eternity in torment.  Seems to me there's a whole lot riding on what we do in the span of a lifetime, which is nothing when compared to eternity.  This suggests to me that there must be more than one chance to get it right.  Hence my notions of running in a cycle of some sort, working things out with at least a few chances to do so.  This assumes, of course, the existence of a loving and caring deity.  If not, then we just come to an end.



> Can I ask please why did you refuse confirmation as a teenager? What made you decide it was not for you at that age? Again, thank you for sharing so generously as you have done, I appreciate you posting.



From the time I was quite young, I resisted involvement in the Church.  My parents, as I stated, are very devout and pushed for our involvement, and I resented it from a very early age.  This resistance never left me, and it became a problem as I became a teenager.  I couldn't tolerate it, but in my home there was no room to argue it.  So when confirmation time came for me, at around 16 or so, I was hearing the message, "This is YOUR choice to make, this is YOUR committment and relationship with God".  But I was not being given a choice, I was simply told that I must do this.  So I stepped back and say, "wait a minute, if you are going to tell me that this is my choice, then I will actually choose, and I choose 'NO'".  Well, that was the wrong choice, so it turned into a fight.  But I simply refused, and eventually they let it go, tho I know they were very very upset by it.  But I felt that given my feelings on the matter, and my resistance to it and even resentment to feeling like I was having my arm twisted to do this, it would be hipocritical to go thru it just to make someone else happy.


----------



## Langenschwert

Jenna said:


> That is very interesting Mark, thank you for sharing your guiding beliefs and principles. Do you know how far back these practices stretch? It sounds like a very ancient form of philosophy and thought organisation. Do you feel accompanied by your beliefs? Or are you in some ways left to your own devices? And what guidance do you have to, as you say, live to be the type of person the gods would want to hang out with? How do you or followers of Heathenism discern what kind of person the gods would want to hang out with if there are no writings to that effect? I am interested to understand. Thank you very much for your contribution.



Unfortunately, there has been no continuation of practice from earlier times to the present day. The last known temple of the Old Faith was in Uppsala, Sweden, and it was closed in the 1100's, IIRC. What we have left are the eddas, the sagas, and external writings by Roman writers who visited those tribes. We also have writing by churchmen of the day saying "don't you xyz", so we often take that as we _should_ be doing xyz since the church wouldn't have frowned on practices no one adhered to. 

Back in the day, each household practiced their own way. So it is today. It's not my business what someone else does. It is a somewhat existential faith when you get right down to it.

Our ethical guidance comes from the writings tempered by our own common sense. No one goes viking today, even if the practice was lauded back then. We examine the writings and apply them to our lives. What has become common is the adherence to the Nine Noble Virtues. There were codified by the Odinic Rite and have become pretty common shorthand for Heathen ethics. They are as follows:
Courage
Truth
Honour
Fidelity
Discipline
Hospitality
Self Reliance
Industriousness
Perseverance
You get the basic idea. There are two main rituals, Sumbel and Blot. Varying communities celebrate them differently. You'll have to look them up to get an idea of what they might be like. Yule and Veteran's Day are usually honoured as well. Yule is my favourite.

We are not Wiccans. We are not an "earth religion". Some Heathens don't even use the term "pagan" to further differentiate themselves from the neo-pagan pseudo-wiccan-influenced fluffy-bunny mainstream. Some are very modern in their approach while others, such as those who practice Theodism, try to be as historically authentic as possible. To each his own.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Instructor

Jenna said:


> I do not know if anyone is reading and but if I could ask *a general question*, I would ask, if there was someone out there wandering the plains of the internet looking into this thread and undecided about which path through faith or around it might suit them best, do you think the discussions here would assist them with their decision?
> 
> Does it help *you*, does it reveal anything, or is everything you need to know on the subject already known to you to your satisfaction?
> 
> Is anything clearer? Or is everything as it was?
> 
> Thank you.



I don't know.  What this thread shows me is that people with different religious ideas can have a sensible conversation on the subject.  I think experiences shape us more than anything.

I grew up Methodist and spent hours listening to what they had to say but it never resonated.  My pentacostal friend and I have a conversation one day and it changes the way I view the world!


----------



## Jenna

ballen0351 said:


> I once was one the the Atheist that Bill speaks of. I would go out of my way to make fun of Christians or other religious people more jokingly then hateful but still mean none the less. I would never quote the Bible to them because I thought it was a made up had had no meaning. i thought they were too stupid to see the real world. I saw too many evil and terrible things in my life to believe there could be a god. Going all the way back to when i was 12 a class mate and friend of mine lived 6 houses down from me killed his parents and sister one day with a base ball bat. Ive seen friends gunned down in training accidents in the Marine Corp. Watched recruits shoot themselves when I was a range instructor on Parris Island. Then I became a Police Officer and saw how truly evil people can be to eachother and thought there is no way a god would allow this to happen to his people. I was totally against it all i couldnt understand it. I stuck with this for most of my life. Then about 2 years ago I dont know why or what happened but I just started to see Gods calling. It started out small and slowly. I started to recall several times in my life where I should have been killed, shot, stabbed, and I wasnt for some fluke reason. Case in point I knocked on a door once to serve a warrant on the home owner. Just as I knocked for some reason my badge just fell off my shirt Im not sure how but it did so As I bent down to pick it up the home owner shot thru the door. Had I been standing up it would have hit me in the head. At the time I blamed my seatbelt on undoing the badge clasp and lifting it out of my shirt but now Im not so sure. I recalled others that shoudl have died but didnt. From there it went to getting a new rental car for work and in the CD player was a CD of a pastor giving a sermon. I listen to it for some reason. From there I was introduced to people in my life that were of strong religious faith and they were not pushy but they allowed me to ask question and answered them. Then out of the blue my wife asked that we start going to church which I was against and refused for a while as she went with the kids. Then I started to go to support her but sat in the back with a major attitude. Over time I started to listen to the Pastor and one day I dont know what happened I feel like I woke up. Everything jsut seemed brighter and more alive. I know it shoulds stupid but I actually felt like a weight was lifted off my shoulders. I cant explain it but I decided to join my church and started to pray. Im still very new to all of this so its very exciting and I learn more and more every day. But Im happy and it has changed my behavior, my outlook on life, my relationship with my wife and kids. i would never try to change anyones mind mainly because I dont think you can. Your relationship with God is a personal one and in time You will make your own choice even if it takes God smacking you up side the head a few times saying hey fool Ive been here all along.


Thank you very much for sharing your experiences.  I am glad you were able to attribute that event to a calling God has for you  I can picture you sitting in the car being sullen  I am pleased that things have worked out for you in a way that has given you happiness.  I am very grateful that you are able to share your experience so positively, thank you   I wonder if it is ok to ask if coming from a position formerly as atheist, do you find you are better able to empathise with those of no faith?  How do you feel your previous experience has affected or informs your faith now?  Or is it irrelevant to you now?  Thank you.






Flying Crane said:


> I do see this, or at least I see a sense of "this is what it all means" and while dialog and discussion and even doubt is usually welcome, it is welcome only if it leads back to the formal position of the Church. I'm just not convinced that the Church, the institution built by People, has discovered all the answers. While they have perhaps discovered many answers that are good, I don't believe that anyone holds the monopoly on the divine or the mysterious. And some of the Church's positions on things I absolutely disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually do have notions that something comes after this life, I just cannot hold up proof of what these notions are. I find that if there is a just deity of some sort, one that has created us and actually loves us, then it's a weird notion that we have simply one lifetime to "get it right", and if we fail we may spend eternity in torment. Seems to me there's a whole lot riding on what we do in the span of a lifetime, which is nothing when compared to eternity. This suggests to me that there must be more than one chance to get it right. Hence my notions of running in a cycle of some sort, working things out with at least a few chances to do so. This assumes, of course, the existence of a loving and caring deity. If not, then we just come to an end.
> 
> 
> 
> From the time I was quite young, I resisted involvement in the Church. My parents, as I stated, are very devout and pushed for our involvement, and I resented it from a very early age. This resistance never left me, and it became a problem as I became a teenager. I couldn't tolerate it, but in my home there was no room to argue it. So when confirmation time came for me, at around 16 or so, I was hearing the message, "This is YOUR choice to make, this is YOUR committment and relationship with God". But I was not being given a choice, I was simply told that I must do this. So I stepped back and say, "wait a minute, if you are going to tell me that this is my choice, then I will actually choose, and I choose 'NO'". Well, that was the wrong choice, so it turned into a fight. But I simply refused, and eventually they let it go, tho I know they were very very upset by it. But I felt that given my feelings on the matter, and my resistance to it and even resentment to feeling like I was having my arm twisted to do this, it would be hipocritical to go thru it just to make someone else happy.


Thank you again Michael.  I can picture you as that teenager and it must have been a complex time for you trying to strike out as an independent young man while wanting still to please your family.  I am not surprised you reacted as you did.  I wonder if the choice had TRULY been yours might things have been different.  We will never know I think.  And I understand what you are saying that we are of finite understanding and cannot reasonably be expected to discern the infinite in our lifetimes.  I think reincarnation is a central theme with almost all religions though it takes various forms (some obviously not corporeal).  I think it is difficult sometimes to discern proof -or proof enough- when we are not clear on what form that proof would take or perhaps we have preconceptions of what proof would be which means we are perhaps looking in the wrong place for proof or for the wrong kind of proof.  I do not know if that makes sense.. I have had too much chocolate I think   I do appreciate you sharing openly and I am grateful and always happy to learn more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

cdunn said:


> It's not when you spec do it that it's a problem. Or even some random person on some message board... As has already happened in this very thread, one notes. It's when your own parents do it. It's when your boss does it. It's when presidential candidates tell you you can't be a good citizen. Does it exist? Certainly. I'm sorry you feel tarred, but some will fire in all directions when surrounded. These are the beliefs we are regularly confronted with.



I guess I'm collateral damage.  My religion annoys some atheists, and since they can't yell at their bosses, parents, or political candidates, I'm a good substitute.  Lovely.

It's not really a problem though.  I have a thick skin, I can take it.  Fair warning, I fire back and expect those who give me grief over my religion to take it as good as they dish it out.


----------



## Steve

Jenna, I don't think anyone's ever taken advantage, at least on a personal level.  

One thing I think is interesting that's coming out in the discussion is that some people value the sharing of their beliefs, and feel that it's their duty to try and help other people come to what they believe is a revealing of some great truth.  

Other people value restraint and don't want to be proselytized to by their friends or acquaintances all the time.  

My point is that these are both values.  One is not more "right" than the other.  The way I see it, if part of your belief system is to remind me that we disagree every time we get together, I don't care.  I can see that it might become irritating if it's overdone, but as Instructor (who seems to be in this camp) said, "In the end alienating people and losing friends is simply counterproductive. Better to try to just be a good and loving friend. Demonstrate faith through your example and when you fall short be honest about it."  That's been my experience, too.  If I'm assertive but friendly, my Christian friends will back off.  Bringing me to God is like trying to grow grass in the sand.  

Conversely, I would never presume to tell them that they're wrong.  What business is it of mine?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Steve said:


> Bringing me to God is like trying to grow grass in the sand.



You mean like this?




Native grass growing in sand by hoolsmum, on Flickr

Sorry, just having fun.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native grass growing in sand by hoolsmum, on Flickr
> 
> Sorry, just having fun.


Exactly like that.  That scraggly, scruffy looking piece of what is only technically in the family of "grass" is my spirituality.  




THAT'S what my friends WANT to make of it.  It all works out, though.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Steve said:


> Exactly like that.  That scraggly, scruffy looking piece of what is only technically in the family of "grass" is my spirituality.
> 
> THAT'S what my friends WANT to make of it.  It all works out, though.



Touche!


----------



## ballen0351

Jenna said:


> I wonder if it is ok to ask if coming from a position formerly as atheist, do you find you are better able to empathise with those of no faith?  How do you feel your previous experience has affected or informs your faith now?  Or is it irrelevant to you now?  Thank you.


I dont think you can ever say anything to a person to change their mind. If a person is steadfast in a belief that there is no God then they are the only ones that can change it.  The best thing a person of faith can do is learn as much as you can and be ready to answer legitimate questions from someone that really wants to learn.  Im not taling about getting into a religious argument with someone that does not believe and wont believe because thats  pointless.I for one am still new and trying to learn myself so I cant answer alot all I can do is point them to people that know more then I do.  As for how it effects my faith now well it has answered alot of questions Ive had.  I dont feel sorry for anyone that has not found God yet however I feel bad that I waisted so much time in my life denying something instead of embracing it.  I look forward to learning more so that someday I may be able to help someone else.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> Jenna, I don't think anyone's ever taken advantage, at least on a personal level.
> 
> One thing I think is interesting that's coming out in the discussion is that some people value the sharing of their beliefs, and feel that it's their duty to try and help other people come to what they believe is a revealing of some great truth.
> 
> Other people value restraint and don't want to be proselytized to by their friends or acquaintances all the time.
> 
> My point is that these are both values.  One is not more "right" than the other.  The way I see it, if part of your belief system is to remind me that we disagree every time we get together, I don't care.  I can see that it might become irritating if it's overdone, but as Instructor (who seems to be in this camp) said, "In the end alienating people and losing friends is simply counterproductive. Better to try to just be a good and loving friend. Demonstrate faith through your example and when you fall short be honest about it."  That's been my experience, too.  If I'm assertive but friendly, my Christian friends will back off.  Bringing me to God is like trying to grow grass in the sand.
> 
> Conversely, I would never presume to tell them that they're wrong.  What business is it of mine?


I hear your points and they are well made.  I cannot tell if you are irked by what you have read though that is my perception through your writing. If that is so, then I am sorry if that has happened through reading what is here.  My intention was to encourage sharing of the positives of having a faith and by the same token I am happy to share discussion with any faith at any level or those favouring atheism no matter how steadfast in their belief as long as discussion is open minded.  People and their experiences are a continual source of learning to me.  And I am grateful for everyone.

I will not hear though that it is a bad thing for me to ask others to share openly simply because I am interested in learning.  

I sense perhaps that you are equating the desire to share with a desire to proselytise?  I can only speak for myself and say in my case that is not correct.  I like to share because it is my nature to connect.  That is all.  We are all different.  Some prefer solitude some prefer gregariousness.  I like to share.  I would rather find common ground than identify differences. 

I do not like the kinds of nitpicking and factionalism that is present in forms here.  I do not like proselytising as it is a facile pursuit.  I do not like the sanctimoniousness of belief whether that is an active belief or a destructive one.  I do not care what faith someone professes.  Nor do I care if they profess none.  We are all people.  We are all trying to achieve the same end.  Bickering over whose way is the right way shows a lack of apprehension.  

There is NO right way.  There is only the right way for any particular individual.  

That is my view.  

There is nothing wrong with a simple request to share experience though.  I will stand by that.  

Thank you.


----------



## cdunn

Bill Mattocks said:


> I will say this about atheists.  If, when I die, I simply cease to exist, then I will not have the ability to admit I was wrong about religion, nor will they be able to 'neener neener' me from their own graves.  If, however, I awaken in some kind of afterlife, I will laugh my *** off at the atheists.  My bet that religion exists has a payoff.  Theirs has none (Pascal's Wager).


Religion, and its attendant rituals and doctrines, has a price in the here and now, and saving that price against the (imo, extreme unlikelihood) of God's existance is a form of payoff. The rituals consume resources. Doctrines imposed can cause harm - both self inflicted, and against others, all in the chance that Pascal's poor wager will pay off. If we both wake up in Xibalba, we both lost.


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> I hear your points and they are well made.  I cannot tell if you are irked by what you have read though that is my perception through your writing. If that is so, then I am sorry if that has happened through reading what is here.  My intention was to encourage sharing of the positives of having a faith and by the same token I am happy to share discussion with any faith at any level or those favouring atheism no matter how steadfast in their belief as long as discussion is open minded.  People and their experiences are a continual source of learning to me.  And I am grateful for everyone.
> 
> I will not hear though that it is a bad thing for me to ask others to share openly simply because I am interested in learning.
> 
> I sense perhaps that you are equating the desire to share with a desire to proselytise?  I can only speak for myself and say in my case that is not correct.  I like to share because it is my nature to connect.  That is all.  We are all different.  Some prefer solitude some prefer gregariousness.  I like to share.  I would rather find common ground than identify differences.
> 
> I do not like the kinds of nitpicking and factionalism that is present in forms here.  I do not like proselytising as it is a facile pursuit.  I do not like the sanctimoniousness of belief whether that is an active belief or a destructive one.  I do not care what faith someone professes.  Nor do I care if they profess none.  We are all people.  We are all trying to achieve the same end.  Bickering over whose way is the right way shows a lack of apprehension.
> 
> There is NO right way.  There is only the right way for any particular individual.
> 
> That is my view.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a simple request to share experience though.  I will stand by that.
> 
> Thank you.


I'm not irked at all!   This thread is about sharing.  But what seemed to be a common theme is that people get upset when their friends try to convert them.  As I said before, this usually doesn't upset me, but I've found that in real life people are usually pretty understanding.  If they're really your friends. 

I'm really only saying that there are two discussions taking place.  One is about religion and religious beliefs and the other is about communication and interpersonal skills.   

But of course I'm not irked.  In fact, I'm a little irked that you would suggest that I was irked.  Actually, scratch that.  I'm more vexed than irked.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

cdunn said:


> Religion, and its attendant rituals and doctrines, has a price in the here and now, and saving that price against the (imo, extreme unlikelihood) of God's existance is a form of payoff. The rituals consume resources. Doctrines imposed can cause harm - both self inflicted, and against others, all in the chance that Pascal's poor wager will pay off. If we both wake up in Xibalba, we both lost.



Although I don't agree with all of Pascal's logic, he argued that even if one did not believe in (in his case, Catholicism), but lived as if one did, one received a benefit during their lifetime, and beyond if indeed there was an afterlife.  He believe that behaving in certain ways that conformed to religious norms of his day were worthwhile.

I do see your point; however, there are pros and cons. Not all religious laws I observe harm me or others; some, I accept, may be seen that way.  A requirement to give alms would seem to be a requirement that harms none; a requirement to attempt to convert others might be seen as harmful and certainly has been so in the past (when done at the point of a sword).

Civil laws imposed can also impose harm, though,  as well as morals which we all, religion and non, accept (to a greater or lesser extent) as worthwhile.  In other words, one is not free to live unfettered of restraints, whether imposed by religious beliefs and rules, the laws of man, or simply societal agreement (morals, ethics, homeowners' association rules, you name it, etc).  Religion is just one of many things which limit choice or seek to impose choices on others.


----------



## Jenna

Langenschwert said:


> Unfortunately, there has been no continuation of practice from earlier times to the present day. The last known temple of the Old Faith was in Uppsala, Sweden, and it was closed in the 1100's, IIRC. What we have left are the eddas, the sagas, and external writings by Roman writers who visited those tribes. We also have writing by churchmen of the day saying "don't you xyz", so we often take that as we should be doing xyz since the church wouldn't have frowned on practices no one adhered to.
> 
> Back in the day, each household practiced their own way. So it is today. It's not my business what someone else does. It is a somewhat existential faith when you get right down to it.
> 
> Our ethical guidance comes from the writings tempered by our own common sense. No one goes viking today, even if the practice was lauded back then. We examine the writings and apply them to our lives. What has become common is the adherence to the Nine Noble Virtues. There were codified by the Odinic Rite and have become pretty common shorthand for Heathen ethics. They are as follows:
> 
> Courage
> Truth
> Honour
> Fidelity
> Discipline
> Hospitality
> Self Reliance
> Industriousness
> Perseverance
> 
> You get the basic idea. There are two main rituals, Sumbel and Blot. Varying communities celebrate them differently. You'll have to look them up to get an idea of what they might be like. Yule and Veteran's Day are usually honoured as well. Yule is my favourite.
> 
> We are not Wiccans. We are not an "earth religion". Some Heathens don't even use the term "pagan" to further differentiate themselves from the neo-pagan pseudo-wiccan-influenced fluffy-bunny mainstream. Some are very modern in their approach while others, such as those who practice Theodism, try to be as historically authentic as possible. To each his own.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


I find this hugely interesting Mark and I think it is very edifying having such a noble humanity about it.  Thank you for elaborating.  I have travelled and lived in Norway and there is something about the place which is irrefutably inspiring and yet mystical and unavailable to five simple senses.  I can surely understand the kind of background that might birth such grand and yet such humble ideas that are present in your beliefset.  I will certainly try to look some more into those rituals.  The logic of the churchmen seems perfectly well formed.  And but then if you do not hold shared expression with of other members of your beliefset, does it leave you in any way isolated do you think?  Also I wonder do you find that the term Heathen is bound to certain meanings that are not in any way true?  And you do not like fluffy bunny mainstream neo paganism?  So there is competition for authenticity among your faith community with those practicing other faiths?  I am grateful for you sharing your experiences and want to thank you again.



Instructor said:


> I don't know. What this thread shows me is that people with different religious ideas can have a sensible conversation on the subject. I think experiences shape us more than anything.
> 
> I grew up Methodist and spent hours listening to what they had to say but it never resonated. My pentacostal friend and I have a conversation one day and it changes the way I view the world!


I would say experiences count for more than talk.  It is a common saying where I am from: he who tastes knows.  One cannot understand a mushroom omelette by description as it relies too heavily upon analogy.  I am glad for how you have come to your faith.  I am happy to hear the positive experiences that it has brought to you since that discovery also.  Thank you again, I am grateful as ever.


----------



## Tez3

Paganism in Iceland. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2008/05/iceland-perfect-pagan-country.html
 Sounds very attractive, if I were in the market to change this has a lot going for it!


----------



## john2054

Hi Jenna Tez, and the rest of the valuable contributors to this thread. Well I was pleasantly surprised to find this same topic opening up on martial talk, a topic which i myself have raised and engaged with until extinction, on more then a couple contemporaries of this site, mores the pity! But Tez, I'll start off by saying that my grandad was a Jewish man, and I have fond memories of him. Also my fleeting encounters with the Jewish faith have only proved good to mankind so please believe me when i say that you have nothing to fear from me. Something I read earlier was that someone said that they believed in the Bible as a Christian, that it is God's word whatever that is supposed to mean? Maybe you believe this, but I am a Christian (I was baptised and confirmed a few months ago at my local Methodist/United Reformed church which I have joined). But I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but written by man's own hands. And the less we say about him (you know man, the sinner) the better!

lol just kidding. But seriously I am a Christian, and haven't yet since missed a service since I was Baptised. I am comfortable with this form of Christianity, and I explained to the minister that I am a Buddhist as well. Well he said a quick prayer for me and then let the festivities commence! Wow. I was really humbly to be accepted into the church in this way, and if not all of it, i certainly owe them some good parts of my life. I guess you feel the same way Tez?

Now back to the question of God, well I think I may have already told you that I am a Buddhist. So I concur (and believe in, from when I read His books some years ago) everything about Him and Enlightenment. I don't care to go into this in particular too much here, suffice to say I got that one about ten years ago, to any way it can be got. But I only really got it when one day my step daughter held my hand. And as enlightenment is a process as much as a state, I continue to get it everyday.

I have also said that I am a practicing Christian, Don't believe me? How about the Lord's Prayer...

Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Because thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. For ever and ever. A men.

Peace.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> Paganism in Iceland. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2008/05/iceland-perfect-pagan-country.html
> Sounds very attractive, if I were in the market to change this has a lot going for it!



That's pretty amusing.  In the US, Asatru is also the religion of the White Supremacists in prisons across the USA.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...wse-all-issues/1998/winter/the-new-barbarians



> A neo-Pagan religion drawing on images of fiercely proud, boar-hunting Norsemen and their white-skinned Aryan womenfolk is increasingly taking root among Skinheads, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists across the nation.
> 
> Asatrú leaders have opened prison ministries in at least five states recently, and their many jailed followers are heavily white supremacist. A leading proselytizer, iimprisoned terrorist David Lane, has been writing prolifically and influencing many to adopt his racist interpretations.
> 
> Bob Mathews, the late founder of The Order, of which Lane was a member, adopted a series of related beliefs. A Denver Skinhead who confessed to the November murder of a man because he was black bears an Asatrú tattoo. Some key Asatrú leaders have known neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic backgrounds.



Iceland itself, however, is doing rather nicely, despite having had some rather huge problems not long ago:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ken-economy-that-got-out-of-jail-2349905.html



> Iceland was a pioneer in recklessness during the credit boom. And now the small nation in the north Atlantic is a pioneer in political accountability during the credit bust. Geir Haarde, the Icelandic prime minister between 2006 and 2009, appeared in a special constitutional court in Reykjavik yesterday on charges of "failures of ministerial responsibility" during the 2008 financial meltdown. But there is an irony here. For the economy that Mr Haarde helped to wreck has fared surprisingly well since the bust.
> 
> Iceland experienced one of the most severe recessions in the world when the markets crashed in 2008. Economic output fell by about 12 per cent over two years. But the latest report on Iceland by the International Monetary Fund shows that growth is resuming. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.


----------



## Tez3

My Rabbi says the 'Lords Prayer' is a fine piece of Jewish writing!

In answer to why we don't believe Jesus was the messiah...it's written that when the messiah comes it will be the end of the world (which I imagine will be fairly unmissable) so as the world has been going a couple of thousand years now it's safe to assume that Jesus wasn't the messiah, it doesn't say anything about him coming twice either. If you are going to believe that the Bible is the word of G-d you really need to believe all the bits not just the bits you want.

Now whether you believe the messiah has been gone and is coming back or whether you are waiting for him or no one, a good piece of advice, Jewish of course, is to live your life as if the messiah were coming tomorrow in other words live every day as if it were your last, live it to the fullest and don't put off things like telling people you love them or proud of them. Now, it's that sort of practical thought that makes me love being Jewish...that and Shabbat.


----------



## Langenschwert

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's pretty amusing.  In the US, Asatru is also the religion of the White Supremacists in prisons across the USA.



The funny thing is, the nordic ancestors the white supremacists are so keen to glorify wouldn't actually understand their racist beliefs, especially in the light of modern genetics. The most important thing is for an Asatruar to revere his ancestors. Racism essentially says "your ancestors aren't as good as mine". However, every human being shares an ancestor with every other. In disrespecting the ancestors of another, you are directly and_ willfully _disrespecting your own, since you share ancestors with everyone alive. That is the closest thing we have to sin in Heathenism. It is ignoble, deplorable, vile and not in accordance with anything we understand from the Lore. Such people are not welcome in any kindred I have contact with or knowledge of. Don't get me wrong, we have people who have such beliefs. They are ostracised and ridiculed by the greater community. But we can't make them think. Like KKK members who are devout Christians, who forget that Jesus was Jewish, so there are "Asatruar" who forget that we all have African ancestors. Screw them.

Now, there are legitimate practicioners that would be reluctant to admit a member not of Germanic blood into their knidred, but not out of racism. Their philosophy is that people should return to their ancestral faiths and strengthen them. We are well aware of what damage has been done by destroying ethnic faiths and wish that all would thrive. We have no desire to gain converts at the expense of other pre-Christian faiths... it would feel like stealing. Better than we come together at interfaith gatherings in fellowship rather than compete with each other. That being said, suppose a potential convert of African descent approached a kindred and said "I've explored my ancestral faith and it did not move me. I hear the call of the North and of the Aesir and the Vanir. My heart gives me no rest, and here I am, willing to join you". Rare is the kindred that would turn him away. It's kind of like a Gentile converting to Judaism, really. The ethics of Asatru judge a man by his actions, not his race. There are enough references in the Lore to confirm this. Those who think that there is a religious justification for racism in Asatru don't understand the Lore, and probably haven't even read it. And Thor comic books don't count. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Langenschwert

Jenna said:


> I find this hugely interesting Mark and I think it is very edifying having such a noble humanity about it.  Thank you for elaborating.  I have travelled and lived in Norway and there is something about the place which is irrefutably inspiring and yet mystical and unavailable to five simple senses.  I can surely understand the kind of background that might birth such grand and yet such humble ideas that are present in your beliefset.  I will certainly try to look some more into those rituals.  The logic of the churchmen seems perfectly well formed.  And but then if you do not hold shared expression with of other members of your beliefset, does it leave you in any way isolated do you think?  Also I wonder do you find that the term Heathen is bound to certain meanings that are not in any way true?  And you do not like fluffy bunny mainstream neo paganism?  So there is competition for authenticity among your faith community with those practicing other faiths?  I am grateful for you sharing your experiences and want to thank you again.



Any pagan is no stranger to isolation. Isolation from friends and family, from coworkers and the feeling that there are none out there who share your faith. But so what? Carry on, that's what a good Heathen does. We are stoic (in the colloquial sense) if nothing else. 

I have no affection for fluffy bunny paganism. But better them than a judgemental desert faith by far. At least a fluffy bunny crystal afficianado isn't going to attemt to convert me or tell me I'm going to Hell. In the initial days of the resurgence, there were very few females in Asatru, so many male practicioners ended up marrying Wiccans. Asatru certainly had a machismo element to it back them. Now it's about family and belonging. But competition for authenticity? You betcha. There's a running joke in Heathenism that the most common comment you'll get in discussing your faith is "you're doing it wrong".  And screw them too. None of their business what I do. And for the most part, it's live and let live. But we do like to bicker from time to time, as family does. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> My Rabbi says the 'Lords Prayer' is a fine piece of Jewish writing!
> 
> In answer to why we don't believe Jesus was the messiah...it's written that when the messiah comes it will be the end of the world (which I imagine will be fairly unmissable) so as the world has been going a couple of thousand years now it's safe to assume that Jesus wasn't the messiah, it doesn't say anything about him coming twice either. If you are going to believe that the Bible is the word of G-d you really need to believe all the bits not just the bits you want.
> 
> Now whether you believe the messiah has been gone and is coming back or whether you are waiting for him or no one, a good piece of advice, Jewish of course, is to live your life as if the messiah were coming tomorrow in other words live every day as if it were your last, live it to the fullest and don't put off things like telling people you love them or proud of them. Now, it's that sort of practical thought that makes me love being Jewish...that and Shabbat.



Judaism is more about doing hre and now rather than waiting for Heaven. And Shabbat rocks.


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> Jenna, I don't think anyone's ever taken advantage, at least on a personal level.
> 
> One thing I think is interesting that's coming out in the discussion is that some people value the sharing of their beliefs, and feel that it's their duty to try and help other people come to what they believe is a revealing of some great truth.
> 
> Other people value restraint and don't want to be proselytized to by their friends or acquaintances all the time.
> 
> My point is that these are both values.  One is not more "right" than the other.  The way I see it, if part of your belief system is to remind me that we disagree every time we get together, I don't care.  I can see that it might become irritating if it's overdone, but as Instructor (who seems to be in this camp) said, "In the end alienating people and losing friends is simply counterproductive. Better to try to just be a good and loving friend. Demonstrate faith through your example and when you fall short be honest about it."  That's been my experience, too.  If I'm assertive but friendly, my Christian friends will back off.  Bringing me to God is like trying to grow grass in the sand.
> 
> Conversely, I would never presume to tell them that they're wrong.  What business is it of mine?



Good point.  My church's preacher constantly reminds us that we are must try to win people with love.   That is we must not be argumentative.  We should let anyone know who will listen, what we believe and why..  We should not just try to "win" discussions.  Sometimes I think those of us who hold a religious belief become too pushy.  I cannot force anyone to my belief.  Why should I try?  They may appear to do so if I use sufficient force.  But when I am not around to apply that force, or even when I am, their mind may be working on their true belief, while outwardly showing me what I think I want to see.  I do not want to be a part of any such actions.

But I am happy to tell people what I believe and why, any time they are willing to listen.  I just don't see any point in alienating people.  It will almost never be productive in convincing them my way is good.  My God is a God of love.  It may sometimes be tough love, but it is love.  That is the way I see things.  Others are free to disagree.


----------



## Jenna

On the basis of what I sense, I would just like to have confirmed for the record; a metaphorical show of hands is all, who is prepared to stand up and say: if you do not believe what I believe then I feel that your beliefs are wrong?  

Is this how every faith persuades us to think about every other faith (or those of no faith)?  

Is this how atheism looks upon every faith in something intrinsically unknown?

*If you do not believe what I believe (be that the core of my faith or my trust in scientifically- and logically- based atheism) then I feel that you are wrong*.  Is anyone prepared to say this?

Thank you.


----------



## Ken Morgan

wrote this last night, but then someone had to upgrade MT.......

As this discussion is progressing in a very mature manner, Id like to keep that if at all possible.

That being said, I really cant believe that an omnipotent god/goddess, an entity that created billions of galaxies, and possibly multiple universes, gives a **** or even pays attention to a single self-aware hairless ape, inhabiting a single unremarkable planet amongst trillions, and so requires/demands obedience, belief and worship of his/hers own existence. To not worship, believe or behave exactly as he/she demands, (assuming we can even know that), will consequently and subsequently when we die, cast us into the fires of an eternal hell. Talk about a Narcissistic entity. 

To me, live your life the best you can, treat people well and with respect, try not to hurt anyone, and try to give back to the world. If there is a god/goddess he/she will see this, if there isnt a god/goddess your friends and family will see it. Either way, its a win.


----------



## john2054

Hi Jenna, I think that one of the things about faith is trust. Trust in the unknown and trust in God. Also trust in other people. We have to be careful in forums like this when we come out with such proud statements as I believe in my god thus your god is wrong, not just because it can offend others but also because the presumed superiority taken by that statement can actually put us far out of sinc, not just with others but with everyone. It is all very well believing in God in a vacuum, your own little world like. But without others we have nothing. I think that Tez understands this, and it even has some bearing on the uberficial world of the martial arts. If only the mcdojos (of which there are many), would stop milking their fees and start teaching for free. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I have chosen to dedicate this period of my life, not just to keep on getting better and taking my meds, but also to learning, university, and my African wife. I am infact a great believer that family and religion should and do go hand in hand. The lord's prayer which I recited for you back there was a special moment which we say in church every Sunday to remind ourselves of our place before God, and never to forget this. Tez you think that it's Jewish right? Well maybe it is, what's more as I have already tried to make quite clear I don't have a problem with Judaism. I do think that some of the foreign policy directions Israel has been making seem a bit dubious to say the least, but that's extrapolating the personal (micro), to the national (macro), which is a danger and risk of losing touch on reality in this process, like what I was talking about before.

But Jenna, you see, for many years I was an atheist. So I know what it feels like to not believe in God. And despite the amount of rational logic you can find in this position, I fear that it is a hollow position. Much better is to find God, or more effectively is if he finds you. But he won't find you if you don't look for him. Fate, Love, Charity, these are epic words not lightly spoken. Hold onto what you have, and do gardening as a good first step to finding him IMHO!


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> They can maintain what they want. Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not meet the first xriteria, being of the line of David.



Well, Christians believe he did.  We base that on the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which give the lineage of Christ.  You may not believe in the writings of the New Testament, but we do, and those two gospels say so.  I am unaware of anything in the Old Testament which says Jesus Christ wasn't of the lineage of David. 





CanuckMA said:


> It's simple. The Messiah has not come yet. Belief in Jesus is against what Judaism teaches. Therefore, you can't believe Jesus is the messiah and still practice Judaism. People can believe what they want, non-Jews do not define Judaism, we do. You call call a cat a dog, but it's still a cat



I understand what you are saying, but can't agree.  In fact you yourself have stated that being a Jew isn't just the religion.  Again, there were Jews in Jesus' time who accepted him as the Messiah, but still followed all Jewish law and teachings, except for their belief that Jesus was the Messiah.  I could understand you saying they may have erred in their Jewish religious practice, but to say the were not Jews doesn't sound right.  Perhaps I have just not understood what you mean?



CanuckMA said:


> The Messiah will be of the line of David. When he comes, he will be able to prove it by his actions.



As I said sir, we believe, based on the New Testament, that Jesus was of the line of David.  And of course, we as Christians would say that Jesus has already proved His Messiahship by His actions.  But I wonder if you could provide some examples of what actions would prove lineage?



CanuckMA said:


> Get a copy of either the JPS or Artscroll translations of Tanach. Preferably with commentaries. You will get a good idea of what we are about. It's hard to explain, our religion, laws and history are intertwined. You can teach your children the history of your ethnicity or nationality without touching on religion. I can't teach my kids Jewish history without touching on things like the Exodus.



You have mentioned those before.  I will try to get a copy of those as they sound interesting.  Being as Christians believe Jesus was Jewish, and being we believe in the Old Testament, I am sure I would find interesting reading.  But you are again saying being a Jew ethnically and religiously are intertwined.  I can accept that.  But I would not agree that Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah cease to be Jews.  I would think they have simply progressed in the religious belief.  And again, I can understand you not being willing to accept that, and I am not trying to get you to do so.  Just pointing out differences, and asking your understanding and comments on those differences.  I really appreciate you taking time to do so.  Thanks again for that.



CanuckMA said:


> As a side note, can you reply with multi quotes like everyone else? it makes hard to properly reply to you.



I hope this turns out to have done just that.  I did it by putting in HTML quotes and end-quotes.  Is there an easier way?


----------



## oftheherd1

Ken Morgan said:


> wrote this last night, but then someone had to upgrade MT.......
> 
> As this discussion is progressing in a very mature manner, I&#8217;d like to keep that if at all possible.
> 
> That being said, I really can&#8217;t believe that an omnipotent god/goddess, an entity that created billions of galaxies, and possibly multiple universes, gives a **** or even pays attention to a single self-aware hairless ape, inhabiting a single unremarkable planet amongst trillions, and so requires/demands obedience, belief and worship of his/her&#8217;s own existence. To not worship, believe or behave exactly as he/she demands, (assuming we can even know that), will consequently and subsequently when we die, cast us into the fires of an eternal hell. Talk about a Narcissistic entity.
> 
> To me, live your life the best you can, treat people well and with respect, try not to hurt anyone, and try to give back to the world. If there is a god/goddess he/she will see this, if there isn&#8217;t a god/goddess your friends and family will see it. Either way, it&#8217;s a win.



A lot of people express dismay at having to follow what the Bible says are God's rules.  I don't pretend to understand or speak for God, but my understanding is this:  As a Holy God, He cannot allow sin in heaven.  We all have adamic sin.  It can only be removed by the blood of Christ.  Through acceptance of God's gift of eternal life through His grace, we are able to ask for forgiveness of sin any time we have commited sin.  

When we become saved, all our previous sin is washed away.  Sin after that can be forgiven any time was sincerely ask it.  When we get to heaven, Jesus, who sits at the right hand of God, will intervene for us, having purchased our salvation with His blood, and we will still be able to enter heaven.

I know there are differences of opinion amongst the members of the forum.  Any who disagree have that right.  I won't yell at you or tell you that you are in error in a mean nor superior way.  I will just tell you what I believe and you still get to keep your beliefs if that is what you want.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, Christians believe he did.  We base that on the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which give the lineage of Christ.  You may not believe in the writings of the New Testament, but we do, and those two gospels say so.  I am unaware of anything in the Old Testament which says Jesus Christ wasn't of the lineage of David.



Because Tanach does not mention Jesus. And Xtianity sort of painted themselves in a corner regarding the lineage. Lineage is patrilineal. So you'd have to prove that Joseph was a descendant of David. But then again, Joseph is not Jesus' father, is he?







> I understand what you are saying, but can't agree.  In fact you yourself have stated that being a Jew isn't just the religion.  Again, there were Jews in Jesus' time who accepted him as the Messiah, but still followed all Jewish law and teachings, except for their belief that Jesus was the Messiah.  I could understand you saying they may have erred in their Jewish religious practice, but to say the were not Jews doesn't sound right.  Perhaps I have just not understood what you mean?



It's complicated. You are a Jew if born of a Jewish mother or converted. Converson is a religious act. Once a Jew, you remain a Jew even if you don't practice Judaism, unless your religious beliefs are antithetical to Judaism. Xtianity is. So from a Jewish perspective, believing Jesus is the Messiah makes you a Xtian. 





> As I said sir, we believe, based on the New Testament, that Jesus was of the line of David.  And of course, we as Christians would say that Jesus has already proved His Messiahship by His actions.  But I wonder if you could provide some examples of what actions would prove lineage?



Traditional and current Orthodox thought have mainly held that the Messiah will be the anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David via Solomon (See Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan), who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, have a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things.[SUP][[/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism

Jesus did not do any of that. And the Messiah will be a man. G-d is a single entity that does not have a corporal form.





> You have mentioned those before.  I will try to get a copy of those as they sound interesting.  Being as Christians believe Jesus was Jewish, and being we believe in the Old Testament, I am sure I would find interesting reading.  But you are again saying being a Jew ethnically and religiously are intertwined.  I can accept that.  But I would not agree that Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah cease to be Jews.  *I would think they have simply progressed in the religious belief*.  And again, I can understand you not being willing to accept that, and I am not trying to get you to do so.  Just pointing out differences, and asking your understanding and comments on those differences.  I really appreciate you taking time to do so.  Thanks again for that.



Can you not understand how offensive the highlighted part is to us? We have dealt with that for 2.000 years. It's patronizing. It's like patting a child on the head and saying 'that's nice, but onee day you'll grow up".

And you may believe what you want about Jews accepting Jesus, but you don't get to define Judaism, WE do. 





> I hope this turns out to have done just that.  I did it by putting in HTML quotes and end-quotes.  Is there an easier way?



That was good. Thanks.


----------



## oaktree

Hi Jenna


> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?



I was raised Buddhist and I do my best to follow the teachings.



> If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life


I am not sure what it is you want to know about. Plenty of basics can be found online, monstery codes and rules are stricter and demanding.
 If someone asks us to give Dharma we are happy to do so however we never go around preaching Dharma to others who are not interested. 
Buddhism for me brings peace, understanding it is a thinking religion and one in which the Buddha himself said to test his view to see if it is true(to you)

If there is anything you would you like me to discuss further let me know.


----------



## Empty Hands

Jenna said:


> On the basis of what I sense, I would just like to have confirmed for the record; a metaphorical show of hands is all, who is prepared to stand up and say: if you do not believe what I believe then I feel that your beliefs are wrong?



I would be willing to say that for every religious system I have experience with.  All of them that I have studied posit truths about the world which we know are not true or which are highly unlikely to be true.

I would be less willing to say that about faith itself or the existence of the divine.  There still is no reason to believe that the divine exists, but the case is not as clear as it is for organized religions.  I guess the religions just had the bad luck to write everything down into a coherent form before we knew how the world worked.


----------



## Carol

oftheherd1 said:


> I hope this turns out to have done just that.  I did it by putting in HTML quotes and end-quotes.  Is there an easier way?



There is an easier way  

Highlight the text you want to encapsulate in quotes, then click the quote button on the toolbar.  It will add the quotes/endquotes for you.  It will not insert the person's specific username (not the best solution when responding to multiple people) but it will still tag the quotes out


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> On the basis of what I sense, I would just like to have confirmed for the record; a metaphorical show of hands is all, who is prepared to stand up and say: if you do not believe what I believe then I feel that your beliefs are wrong?
> 
> Is this how every faith persuades us to think about every other faith (or those of no faith)?
> 
> Is this how atheism looks upon every faith in something intrinsically unknown?
> 
> *If you do not believe what I believe (be that the core of my faith or my trust in scientifically- and logically- based atheism) then I feel that you are wrong*.  Is anyone prepared to say this?
> 
> Thank you.


Well, I think that you're touching on something a little different.  I don't have any specific beliefs, so I'm not prepared to say that someone else is wrong.  I don't know. 

But that's distinct from someone who does profess to "know" what's what.  Said another way, if I am a christian and I believe that this is the path to salvation, then necessarily, I also believe that other people are wrong.  Same would go for most any other religion with the possible exception of Buddhism or Bahai, depending upon how you look at it.    If you're a muslem, jewish, christian or whatever else, you can't believe in your own dogma without necessarily disbelieving in everyone else's.


----------



## Instructor

cdunn said:


> Religion, and its attendant rituals and doctrines, has a price in the here and now, and saving that price against the (imo, extreme unlikelihood) of God's existance is a form of payoff. The rituals consume resources. Doctrines imposed can cause harm - both self inflicted, and against others, all in the chance that Pascal's poor wager will pay off. If we both wake up in Xibalba, we both lost.



They 'can' cause harm, and have.  BUT they can also do a lot of good, and have.


----------



## Steve

Instructor said:


> They 'can' cause harm, and have.  BUT they can also do a lot of good, and have.


Sure.  Religion is like community organizing.  If you're charismatic and organize a group, you can get a lot done, whether it's as a mob or as a charity.  You get enough people together under any banner and stuff gets done.

But that's true of any large group, not just religion.


----------



## Jenna

john2054 said:


> Hi Jenna, I think that one of the things about faith is trust. Trust in the unknown and trust in God. Also trust in other people. We have to be careful in forums like this when we come out with such proud statements as I believe in my god thus your god is wrong, not just because it can offend others but also because the presumed superiority taken by that statement can actually put us far out of sinc, not just with others but with everyone.



Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.  I am grateful for them.

_*<devil's advocate>*_
Let me be the proverbial devil's advocate then and suggest to you a situation in which I claim a certain beliefset and know it conflicts with yours.  

My beliefset is self-contained and does not recognise the validity, provenance or claims of your beliefset (or any others).  In conversation, the subject arises and I tell you that I think your beliefset is wrong (as I might do about your habit of running with cutlery ).  

Am I being superior?

My beliefset tells me that it is right and all others are wrong.  

Why  you are offended at that?  Why does my assertion that your beliefset is wrong cause you offence?  I think my opinion is not that important to you so why does it matter?​ 
_*</devil's advocate>*_

Can I ask please, what do you think I am missing when I make this assertion about your beliefset?  Thank you.


----------



## Jenna

oaktree said:


> Hi Jenna
> 
> 
> I was raised Buddhist and I do my best to follow the teachings.
> 
> 
> I am not sure what it is you want to know about. Plenty of basics can be found online, monstery codes and rules are stricter and demanding.
> If someone asks us to give Dharma we are happy to do so however we never go around preaching Dharma to others who are not interested.
> Buddhism for me brings peace, understanding it is a thinking religion and one in which the Buddha himself said to test his view to see if it is true(to you)
> 
> If there is anything you would you like me to discuss further let me know.


Hello back  I am grateful for your post.  It is a shared experience of the positive things that faiths might bring to our lives that I am interested in hearing.  I am interested not in what I can read in general terms and but how your beliefs have given you that peace or happiness in your daily life  I appreciate that you do not seek to talk about your faith when it is not pertinent, I am purely trying to provide space to share positives arising from your beliefs  I also agree with the view that you have presented, as I have mentioned elsewhere there is an old phrase that is similar: he who tastes knows  Thank you so much for sharing.


----------



## Jenna

Empty Hands said:


> I would be willing to say that for every religious system I have experience with.  All of them that I have studied posit truths about the world which we know are not true or which are highly unlikely to be true.
> 
> I would be less willing to say that about faith itself or the existence of the divine.  There still is no reason to believe that the divine exists, but the case is not as clear as it is for organized religions.  I guess the religions just had the bad luck to write everything down into a coherent form before we knew how the world worked.


Empty Hands, I wholly appreciate you posting this.  Thank you! 

I think we can allude to our perceptions and our core views at times and but the societal need to in many ways muffle these views I think is often not a good thing.  I appreciate your forthrightness.  I also feel that where some may fall down at the hurdle of specifying their beliefs and views in the face of opposing views is in their inability to accept that difference is ok; perhaps even to be valued.

I think that my view is the correct one as I believe do you and many others on this thread.

You are at liberty to tell me that you feel my view is incorrect, ill-advised or misinformed.  I may feel free to do the same.

If I feel affronted then it is for me to question the source of that affront INTERNALLY in my own head.  It is not for me to put a blame on you because we have established that your view is your entitlement.  

Therefore, for me, I think the two keys to these discussions are 1. *mutual acceptance* of difference of opinion as valid and normal and of no threat, and 2. *the requirement to confront one's own offence INTERNALLY* rather than reflecting one's offence or anger back at the other viewpoint.  In my mind, I think this is the reason we experience everything from vehement argument online to genocide, terrorism and war (my opinion )

I do very much welcome not only your frankness and but also that you have the courage of your convictions.  Thank you.


----------



## Langenschwert

Steve said:


> Well, I think that you're touching on something a little different. I don't have any specific beliefs, so I'm not prepared to say that someone else is wrong. I don't know.
> 
> But that's distinct from someone who does profess to "know" what's what. Said another way, if I am a christian and I believe that this is the path to salvation, then necessarily, I also believe that other people are wrong. Same would go for most any other religion with the possible exception of Buddhism or Bahai, depending upon how you look at it. If you're a muslem, jewish, christian or whatever else, you can't believe in your own dogma without necessarily disbelieving in everyone else's.



We don't have dogma in Asatru. We don't believe other people are wrong. With a multiplicity of deities, claiming a "one true way" is nonsensical. Just because Asatruar worship a dozen-ish deities, doesn't mean that there couldn't be still more being worshipped by someone else. This is why there were no religious wars amongst ancient Heathens. We don't care how others worship. It's simply none of our business. This is the great tragedy of monotheism: the tendency towards intolerance.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Bill Mattocks

What about Crom?











Or the Discordians?











Or the Church of the SubGenius?


----------



## rframe

Langenschwert said:


> We don't have dogma in Asatru. We don't believe other people are wrong...
> -Mark



Unless they are monotheistic and believe in logical absolute truth.... right?


----------



## Steve

Langenschwert said:


> We don't have dogma in Asatru. We don't believe other people are wrong. With a multiplicity of deities, claiming a "one true way" is nonsensical. Just because Asatruar worship a dozen-ish deities, doesn't mean that there couldn't be still more being worshipped by someone else. This is why there were no religious wars amongst ancient Heathens. We don't care how others worship. It's simply none of our business. This is the great tragedy of monotheism: the tendency towards intolerance.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


Mark, fair enough.  Add Asatru to Buddhism and potentially Bahai.


----------



## Gemini

Empty Hands said:


> There still is no reason to believe that the divine exists, but the case is not as clear as it is for organized religions.  I guess the religions just had the bad luck to write everything down into a coherent form before we knew how the world worked.


I found this an interesting statement. I think we _know_ how the world works just as surely as we did when we _knew_ the world was flat. Maybe absolute existence of the divine is what we'll _know_ tomorrow.


----------



## Sukerkin

I am not sure that there was ever a time where modern man explicitly thought the world was flat - I have heard that particular aphorism many, many times over the years in different historical contexts and, in each case, it has been seen that the learned of that era did not hold such a tenet to be true.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> I am not sure that there was ever a time where modern man explicitly thought the world was flat - I have heard that particular aphorism many, many times over the years in different historical contexts and, in each case, it has been seen that the learned of that era did not hold such a tenet to be true.



I don't wish to speak for Gemini, but I believe the point was that many of the things we _'know to be true'_ may well turn out not to be in future.  As it has in the past, for many things. 

In any age, there tends to be an assumption that the science that has since been proven wrong was obviously wrong, those foolish primitives, but the science we know today will never be seen in the future as wrong.  We live in a perpetual state of correctness; we are never wrong when it comes to science.  When the future looks back on our time and sees our scientific errors, they'll make the same claims we make today.

So any claim that religion has 'made a mistake' by not basing their Creation myths and other dogma on current scientific understanding assumes that our current understanding will never be proven wrong in the future.  Personally, I think that presumes much for science.  But as I've mentioned before, *many atheists are religious*.  They just place their faith in science they do not understand, rather than a God they do not understand.  Otherwise, same thing.


----------



## Gemini

Sukerkin said:


> I am not sure that there was ever a time where modern man explicitly thought the world was flat - I have heard that particular aphorism many, many times over the years in different historical contexts and, in each case, it has been seen that the learned of that era did not hold such a tenet to be true.


I think you missed my point (though I personally know for a fact the world was flat) that we have _known_ things many times in our history that have since been proven false from dietary requirements to the composition of the universe. Choose any one of several examples to insert.

Edit: Actually, Bill Mattocks beat me to the reply and clarified my statement better than I did. Completely ignore this post and defer to the post above.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Gemini said:


> I think you missed my point (though I personally know for a fact the world was flat) that we have _known_ things many times in our history that have since been proven false from dietary requirements to the composition of the universe. Choose any one of several examples to insert.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Agreed.  It's flat.

In a funny way, it may be true in a certain sense.  If space-time really is warped, concepts like 'flat' and 'round' are just useful constructs of our perceptions anyway.  Nothing is flat, nothing is round, it's all without form in the sense we think we mean.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> Because Tanach does not mention Jesus. And Xtianity sort of painted themselves in a corner regarding the lineage. Lineage is patrilineal. So you'd have to prove that Joseph was a descendant of David. But then again, Joseph is not Jesus' father, is he?



Well I must admit to some surprise that you say lineage is patrilineal. I had always heard that lineage for considering oneself Jewish came through the mother.  I took the liberty of looking that up in wikipedia, and that also confirmed that, although it also mentioned that "Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism often accept a child as Jewish if only the father is Jewish. As the various denominations of Judaism differ on their conversion processes, conversions performed by more liberal denominations are not accepted by those that are less so."  I don't know if you consider yourself to be Reform or Reconstructionist as the article also states "In general, Orthodox Judaism considers a person born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish, even if they convert to another religion.[SUP][35][/SUP] Reform Judaism views Jews who convert to another faith as non-Jews. For example "...anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew...""

That is something I have asked you a couple of times now, and you do answer it below, even though it seems to be contradictory based on the type of Jew you are (that is - Orthodos, Reform, etc), so even among Jewish people, there is no concensus.  Am I correct in my understanding?  But those Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah must have considered themselves still Jews, and probably their other Jewish contemporaries did as well.  Certainly Paul still considered himself a Jew.

As to Christianity painting itself into a corner, I would disagree.  In the first Chapter of Matthew, you will find the lineage, in the 16th verse, it says And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.   So Joseph was the husband of Mary.  Jesus was born of Mary, but not Joseph.  Again in Luke's 3rd chapter, verse 23, we read, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, so there is no doubt that Joseph was not considered the biological father of Jesus.  



CanuckMA said:


> It's complicated. You are a Jew if born of a Jewish mother or converted. Converson is a religious act. Once a Jew, you remain a Jew even if you don't practice Judaism, unless your religious beliefs are antithetical to Judaism. Xtianity is. So from a Jewish perspective, believing Jesus is the Messiah makes you a Xtian.



I get all that, except your comment above that lineage is patrilineal.  Can you help me resolve that inconsistancy in my own mind please?



CanuckMA said:


> Traditional and current Orthodox thought have mainly held that the Messiah will be the anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David via Solomon (See Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan), who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, have a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things.[SUP][[/SUP]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism
> 
> Jesus did not do any of that. And the Messiah will be a man. G-d is a single entity that does not have a corporal form.



So you are not quoting the Bible itself for those ideas?



CanuckMA said:


> Can you not understand how offensive the highlighted part is to us? We have dealt with that for 2.000 years. It's patronizing. It's like patting a child on the head and saying 'that's nice, but onee day you'll grow up"..



Well, yes and no.  I did not mean it as a way of putting you down personally, but simply saying what I would consider the state of Jews who believe in Jesus.  That is assuming of course that you consider them Jews after all.  And apparently you do not.  I really think those themselves believe themselves Jews.




CanuckMA said:


> And you may believe what you want about Jews accepting Jesus, but you don't get to define Judaism, WE do.



And if those who are of previous uncontested Jewish ancestry and religion, decide to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, they cannot define their portion of Judaism?  I'll have to search one out and ask.



CanuckMA said:


> That was good. Thanks.



You are quite welcome.  I wonder if others were disturbed by that but without saying so?


----------



## Jenna

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
> 
> Agreed.  It's flat.
> 
> In a funny way, it may be true in a certain sense.  If space-time really is warped, concepts like 'flat' and 'round' are just useful constructs of our perceptions anyway.  Nothing is flat, nothing is round, it's all without form in the sense we think we mean.



Am I correct in saying that under infinite magnification even a curve becomes a straight line? 

In which case those surmising the flat earth were in fact mathematically accurate? while also at the same time capable of envisioning the existence of an infinitely magnifiying device.

I jest.   Only I think it is true that today's certainty is often tomorrow's fallacy.


----------



## Empty Hands

Bill Mattocks said:


> When the future looks back on our time and sees our scientific errors, they'll make the same claims we make today.



You often say this, but it isn't really true.  Some things are confirmed to such a degree that they will always be true.  We have physically observed the shape of the Earth.  It is a spheroid (technically, ellipse).  It will always be a spheroid.  We will never wake up one day, smack our foreheads, and exclaim "how could we think the Earth was a sphere?!?".  Similarly, the Greeks worked out the principles of geometry thousands of years ago.  They weren't wrong simply because it was thousands of years ago.  The gaps in our understanding that could fit a deity or two have steadily shrunk with the ages, not gotten larger.  It is unlikely in the extreme that a gap will suddenly open when all they have done is close.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Empty Hands said:


> You often say this, but it isn't really true.  Some things are confirmed to such a degree that they will always be true.  We have physically observed the shape of the Earth.  It is a spheroid (technically, ellipse).  It will always be a spheroid.  We will never wake up one day, smack our foreheads, and exclaim "how could we think the Earth was a sphere?!?".  Similarly, the Greeks worked out the principles of geometry thousands of years ago.  They weren't wrong simply because it was thousands of years ago.  The gaps in our understanding that could fit a deity or two have steadily shrunk with the ages, not gotten larger.  It is unlikely in the extreme that a gap will suddenly open when all they have done is close.



In the fields of study known as cosmology, many radical changes have been made in our understanding and continue to be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology

These are sometimes small refinements, but other times they completely throw out one theory for another.  I've lived through a couple; I was taught that the Big Bang and the Steady State universe theories were on approximately equal footing for being accurate descriptions of our universe's origins.  There was no theory of a multiverse, and string theory was quite some time away.

I should qualify my statements, however.  I do not believe most scientists believe we have arrived at a perpetual state of correctness about everything.  Rather non-scientists like myself tend to do so.  This, as I have argued before, makes it an article of faith, which is religion.

I frankly do not expect that science will suddenly discover that the real 'original cause' of the universe to be an intelligent all-powerful being.  However, I do expect that we will continue to come with new explanations based upon new research and that our current theories may seem quaint and very incorrect at some future date.  At the same time, each successive generation of atheists will produce some members who explain that religion is wrong because we 'know' everything about the origin of the universe now (insert any date for 'now').  Science does not make this assumption; but non-scientist believers in science do, frequently.


----------



## Langenschwert

rframe said:


> Unless they are monotheistic and believe in logical absolute truth.... right?



Tee hee. Got me there! Let's just say we are content to agree to disagree. Which is what resulted in Heathenism's extinction... it never occured to them that the Christians wouldn't live and let live. The Christian missionaries settled for nothing less than the complete and utter extermination of opposed theologies. At least this time we know what we're up against and can be aware of human rights legislation that safeguards our liberties. Fool me once...

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Sukerkin

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't wish to speak for Gemini, but I believe the point was that many of the things we _'know to be true'_ may well turn out not to be in future.  As it has in the past, for many things.



Aye, I realised that.  I had only a handful of seconds to make a reply (was at work) and didn't really complete my thought, which was that it is common misconception of the scientific method that leads people to make such assumptions.

Science does not exist in a permanent state of 'correctness' - that is the foundation of religions, of every stripe, that proclaim certainty, based on faith alone, for statements made by people whose goal is social control and/or political power.

Science exists in a permanent state of challenge and investigation where a theory is only as good as the success of it's last prediction.  It encourages thought and questioning rather than certainty altho' it is of course the case that some theories work so well and with such certainty of outcome that challenging them becomes harder.  A prime example are Newtons Laws of motion.  They are not actually 'right' because they fail to account for the quantum level of reality or for how gravity works (we still don't have a good answer to that one).  But they work so very well at the macro scale of human existence that they can be applied with certainty of outcome.

I have often thought of it, simplistically, as being as cut-and-dried that science presents the search for the answers to questions whereas faith-based, mythologically grounded, schools of thought present answers fully formed and incontrovertible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> I have often thought of it, simplistically, as being as cut-and-dried that science presents the search for the answers to questions whereas faith-based, mythologically grounded, schools of thought present answers fully formed and incontrovertible.



I think that's perfectly reasonable.  I agree.

My only addendum to that is that non-scientists who reject religion but do not understand that science is a search and not a set of answers often mistake the former for the latter, and admit as much in their statements.

That is religion of a sort.  They have a non-justified belief that science has provided the answers to life, the universe, and everything.  Religion performs the same function.


----------



## Carol

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the fields of study known as cosmology, many radical changes have been made in our understanding and continue to be made.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology
> 
> These are sometimes small refinements, but other times they completely throw out one theory for another.  I've lived through a couple; I was taught that the Big Bang and the Steady State universe theories were on approximately equal footing for being accurate descriptions of our universe's origins.  There was no theory of a multiverse, and string theory was quite some time away.
> 
> I should qualify my statements, however.  I do not believe most scientists believe we have arrived at a perpetual state of correctness about everything.  Rather non-scientists like myself tend to do so.  This, as I have argued before, makes it an article of faith, which is religion.
> 
> I frankly do not expect that science will suddenly discover that the real 'original cause' of the universe to be an intelligent all-powerful being.  However, I do expect that we will continue to come with new explanations based upon new research and that our current theories may seem quaint and very incorrect at some future date.  At the same time, each successive generation of atheists will produce some members who explain that religion is wrong because we 'know' everything about the origin of the universe now (insert any date for 'now').  Science does not make this assumption; but non-scientist believers in science do, frequently.



Are you saying that atheist believe that science offers a perpetual state of correctness?  I'm under the impression that the support is for the scientific method and the willingness to research, re-evaluate, and review.


----------



## Tez3

Oftheherd, I think you are finding out about the, to me the other joys, of Judaism, that we aren't a straightforward 'this is our dogma' people. when you said that you thought Jews who had accepted Jesus were thrown out of their synagogues and I replied that was alright they'd just and have their own, I wasn't joking. I'm not sure you understand how many 'varities' we are! You will find that Canuck and I have differences of opinion and will vary on how we do things of a religious nature. I'm not sure either if you understand how important discussion and arguing is to us, why we have commentaries on things, why we question them.
Y9u may think we are backward but we have made a bargain (The Covenant) with G-d and it won't be broken by either side so we can't and won't convert. It's not that we think we are right or the only ones with the truth but that G-d offered all the other nations the Torah, they turned it down, we didn't so we sealed a contract with G-d and therefore are His chosen. However free will is given, we chose our lives.

You asked about mistranslations, the word messiah is one. if you look up the Hebrew word then see what it's been translated into you will see a big difference in meaning. I'm afraid I can't expand more, I have Friday night off and it's Shabbos soon. Before you ask, my job is considered something that means I can work on the Shabbat if I have to, which sometimes it's right too because it's not fair on colleagues to mess their family time up working for me or sometimes something has happened you can't walk away from. Might not be an issue soon as we're all looking at being disbanded and made redundant. As has been said we are a practical religion first and foremost and freewill is granted!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Carol said:


> Are you saying that atheist believe that science offers a perpetual state of correctness?  I'm under the impression that the support is for the scientific method and the willingness to research, re-evaluate, and review.



I am saying that 'some' atheists believe that the current state of science offers all the answers and is in fact correct.  Not all.  

The universe does not *require* a 'First Cause'.  However, that does not mean it did not have one.  Many mistake the former for the latter, and that, as I have said, is a form of belief, which is in turn, religion of a sort.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Well I must admit to some surprise that you say lineage is patrilineal. I had always heard that lineage for considering oneself Jewish came through the mother.  I took the liberty of looking that up in wikipedia, and that also confirmed that, although it also mentioned that "Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism often accept a child as Jewish if only the father is Jewish. As the various denominations of Judaism differ on their conversion processes, conversions performed by more liberal denominations are not accepted by those that are less so."  I don't know if you consider yourself to be Reform or Reconstructionist as the article also states "In general, Orthodox Judaism considers a person born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish, even if they convert to another religion.[SUP][35][/SUP] Reform Judaism views Jews who convert to another faith as non-Jews. For example "...anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew...""


 
I'm an Orthodox Jew. 

Jewishness is matrilineal. Lineage and tribal affiliation is patrilineal. 

The Jewishness aspect of one who converts to another religion is a bit more complex because of what being Jewish is about. If you actively folow another religion and decide to come back to Judaism, Orthodox will just welcome you back. Reform may require some sort of ceremony. 


> That is something I have asked you a couple of times now, and you do answer it below, even though it seems to be contradictory based on the type of Jew you are (that is - Orthodos, Reform, etc), so even among Jewish people, there is no concensus.  Am I correct in my understanding?  But those Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah must have considered themselves still Jews, and probably their other Jewish contemporaries did as well.  Certainly Paul still considered himself a Jew.



Again, it does not matter what they considered themsleves to be. You could decide to start eating kosher and keeping Shabbat and cosider yourself a Jew, it does not make you one. 



> As to Christianity painting itself into a corner, I would disagree.  In the first Chapter of Matthew, you will find the lineage, in the 16th verse, it says And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.   So Joseph was the husband of Mary.  Jesus was born of Mary, but not Joseph.  Again in Luke's 3rd chapter, verse 23, we read, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, so there is no doubt that Joseph was not considered the biological father of Jesus.



So if Joseph is not the father, Jesus is not of the line of David, therefore cannot be the Messiah.





> I get all that, except your comment above that lineage is patrilineal.  Can you help me resolve that inconsistancy in my own mind please?



See above. Tribal and lineage and until recently was patrilineal. From around the destruction of the Second Temple began a change where Jewish status is through the mother. Lineage is still through the father. You are a Levi or Cohen because the male line of your father was.





> So you are not quoting the Bible itself for those ideas?



Two things. First, I don't have the tme to pour through text to find the quotes. And second, Tanach is ony part of what we use. We also use Talmud as the Mishna was also given at Sinai.





> Well, yes and no.  I did not mean it as a way of putting you down personally, but simply saying what I would consider the state of Jews who believe in Jesus.  That is assuming of course that you consider them Jews after all.  And apparently you do not.  I really think those themselves believe themselves Jews.
> 
> 
> And if those who are of previous uncontested Jewish ancestry and religion, decide to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, they cannot define their portion of Judaism?  I'll have to search one out and ask.



If they believe in Jesus, they are Xtians. There is a wide range of beliefs whithin Judaism. But there is a line beyond which you cannot claim to practice any kind of Judaism. And that line is belief that Jesus was Messiah.


----------



## CanuckMA

To firther expand on what Tez said, here's an example. We go through Torah yearly. So on the Shabbat where we start again. We spend time studying Torah. Which means we read verses and discuss. One of the classic is opening a Torah at Genesis 1:1 and reading, in Hebrew _B'reshit'_ (In the Begining), stopping there is asking why Torah starts with a _bet_, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet as opposed to an _aleph_, the first letter. That will engender hours of discussion.

And as to the practical, one is commended to not break Shabbat, unless it is to save a life. So Tez's job can be considered as saving lives.


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> To firther expand on what Tez said, here's an example. We go through Torah yearly. So on the Shabbat where we start again. We spend time studying Torah. Which means we read verses and discuss. One of the classic is opening a Torah at Genesis 1:1 and reading, in Hebrew _B'reshit'_ (In the Begining), stopping there is asking why Torah starts with a _bet_, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet as opposed to an _aleph_, the first letter. That will engender hours of discussion.
> 
> And as to the practical, one is commended to not break Shabbat, unless it is to save a life. So Tez's job can be considered as saving lives.



I heard discussion for the first time a couple of weeks ago.  I was at a martial arts seminar and the visiting instructor was a Jewish gentleman.  After the seminar was over, a number of us stayed behind and arranged for dinner to be brought over from a local restaurant.  After dinner, the visiting instructor was in a bit of a philosophical mood so he started discussing Jewish spirituality, the Torah,  Kabbalah, and the like.  The meanings in the letters of "Adam" were mind-blowing.  He also got in to a discussion of why the begins with a _bet_ instead of _aleph_...an explanation that I'm still not sure I grasp.   It was a fascinating evening.   I can see where discussions could go on for hours.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Oftheherd, I think you are finding out about the, to me the other joys, of Judaism, that we aren't a straightforward 'this is our dogma' people. when you said that you thought Jews who had accepted Jesus were thrown out of their synagogues and I replied that was alright they'd just and have their own, I wasn't joking. I'm not sure you understand how many 'varities' we are! You will find that Canuck and I have differences of opinion and will vary on how we do things of a religious nature. I'm not sure either if you understand how important discussion and arguing is to us, why we have commentaries on things, why we question them.
> Y9u may think we are backward but we have made a bargain (The Covenant) with G-d and it won't be broken by either side so we can't and won't convert. It's not that we think we are right or the only ones with the truth but that G-d offered all the other nations the Torah, they turned it down, we didn't so we sealed a contract with G-d and therefore are His chosen. However free will is given, we chose our lives.
> 
> You asked about mistranslations, the word messiah is one. if you look up the Hebrew word then see what it's been translated into you will see a big difference in meaning. I'm afraid I can't expand more, I have Friday night off and it's Shabbos soon. Before you ask, my job is considered something that means I can work on the Shabbat if I have to, which sometimes it's right too because it's not fair on colleagues to mess their family time up working for me or sometimes something has happened you can't walk away from. Might not be an issue soon as we're all looking at being disbanded and made redundant. As has been said we are a practical religion first and foremost and freewill is granted!



Yes, I have learned much.  I really thank you and CanuckMA for sharing your religion, and as well for your patience.

As to differences in Judaism, I would guess it would be like different denominations or sects in other religions.  Some differences do no violence to the basic beliefs, others do.  I don't know if that is correct for Judaism or not.

I in no way think you are backward.  Our religions share what we call the Old Testament.  In our, or at least in my view, Jews have failed to recognize the Messiah.  Obviously we disagree on that.  CanuckMA, I hope that doesn't make you angry.  It isn't intended to.  It simply is what I think, and I speak for no one else.  I do not make any judgements against you for your beliefs.  I guess you might think I make a judgement in saying you have failed to accept the Messiah.  But I don't mean it in a judgemental way.  That is between Judaism and God.  

I mean I don't blame you for anything as you have stated, and history shows, some people do.  Some people fail to realize that in Christianity, Jesus had to die and shed his blood to pay for all our sins forever.   No other sacrifice is needed.  If God chose, or allowed, the Jews to be involved in getting the Romans to accomplish that, it is something the Jews and Romans will have to answer to God for.  In reference to Judas, Jesus stated that things went the way they were intended, but that Judas was not blameless.  But as I see it, *if* there is anything to be done to Jews, it is God's part to do.  Not mine.  

I have never agreed with nor quite understood those who think they must avenge Jesus' death.  How can they say they believe in God, and in Jesus as also God, and not think Jesus went as He intended, and wanted?  And that God in all His might, if he believes Jews need punishment, will not choose His own best time to do it; that if it is needed.  Further, that when God has chosen or allowed a nation or people to punish Jews, it never went well for them afterwards.  How people who read the Bible can think otherwise baffles me.

Well, just my own beliefs.  I speak for no one else.  Anyone may agree or disagree.  I won't be upset or angry at any who choose to disagree.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

CanuckMA said:


> If they believe in Jesus, they are Xtians.



Any chance you could use the term 'Christian' instead of 'Xtian'?  Not that big a deal if it bothers you, but I try to use the appropriate terms when speaking of other religions.


----------



## Sukerkin

Is it a sort of 'texting' shorthand?  The "Cross" followed by "tian"?  Otherwise it reads as Ex-tian which makes no sense in context .


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> Is it a sort of 'texting' shorthand?  The "Cross" followed by "tian"?  Otherwise it reads as Ex-tian which makes no sense in context .



Shorthand it might be, and one sees 'Xmas' instead of "Christmas' here in the US; some even say it like that; 'ex-muss'.

Some evangelical Christians take offense at this and see it as a diabolical attempt to remove the word 'Christ' from both terms.  I'm not quite so wrapped around the axle about it.  I would just prefer to see the correct term used.

Unless we're talking about the English, whom I take devilish delight in mistreating.


----------



## Sukerkin

:chuckles:  I try my darndest not to take offense when the political-geography-mangling occurs


----------



## Tez3

It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:
			
		

> It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
> http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas




Not quite. "Jesus" *is* "Joshua," in Greek. Most of the Hebrews at that time and place were quite Hellenized, actually-gave Paul fits, later on. Of course, their common language was Aramaic, so the name is really _"Jeshua. "_...all via Latin as well, of course. Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. It's no wonder the King James Version-and so many others-are as full of errors and mistranslations as they are. 

"Jesus of Nazareth?" _Really?_ :lfao:

They all mean "G_d will save," though, as long as I'm trying to be all politically correct and non-offensive, and all.

As for using "X" for "Christ," Canuck is actually doing it to avoid associations with the word "messiah," which transliterates as "_kristos_," in Greek, or "the anointed one."

So, by using the "X", he's actually putting the "Christ" right back into "Christmas" and "Christian," as Tez posted....:lol:

carry on....


----------



## Ken Morgan

Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me you&#8217;re all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnys' ears.


----------



## ks - learning to fly

I am a Catholic, born and raised and have no problem sharing my faith...what I won't do is attempt to cram my religion or beliefs down anyone's throat. If someone is hesitant about sharing their faith, my guess would be that maybe they aren't too sure of where they stand themselves. I firmly believe, however, when your foundation is solid - your roots are also strong and your actions should reflect that foundation.

***bows***     Kris         :ultracool


----------



## Jenna

ks - learning to fly said:


> I am a Catholic, born and raised and have no problem sharing my faith...what I won't do is attempt to cram my religion or beliefs down anyone's throat. If someone is hesitant about sharing their faith, my guess would be that maybe they aren't too sure of where they stand themselves. I firmly believe, however, when your foundation is solid - your roots are also strong and your actions should reflect that foundation.
> 
> ***bows***     Kris         :ultracool


Hello Kris and thank you for posting, I am grateful for your contribution.  I appreciate your position and am pleased that your faith is well-routed.  I would agree with your point and imagine that cramming anything down the throat of anyone else can potentially cause a choking hazard.  Do you believe that those who might attempt to choke off another belief with the weight of their own are in some way insecure about their own beliefs?  Thank you again.


----------



## elder999

Ken Morgan said:
			
		

> Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me you&#8217;re all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnies ears.



I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are  a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of _something._ I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............


----------



## Sukerkin

I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales?  In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?

But that isn't what this thread has been about ... and I think we've had a very long thread on this before haven't we?  Something about the Bible being literal truth or suchlike?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
> http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas



Excuse me, but aren't we getting back to the 'you do not get to define my religion' thing?  Christianity calls itself Christianity.  That is the correct name for it, according to the faith itself.  However, if you insist on calling it what you feel is correct instead, I'm certainly not going to argue with you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me youre all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnys' ears.



There is evidence that Jesus, the person, existed.  If you choose to discount what little evidence does exist, that is your own business, but it does not stop existing because you choose not to believe it.


----------



## elder999

Sukerkin said:
			
		

> I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales?  In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?
> 
> But that isn't what this thread has been about ... and I think we've had a very long thread on this before haven't we?  Something about the Bible being literal truth or suchlike?



The hanged or crucified man resurrected is a common archetype. And people naturally tend to combine  belief systems-it's called syncreticism-rather than adopt one to the exclusion of others, hierarchical insistence on the contrary notwithstanding. So you wind up with Islam keeping pagan beliefs and symbolism, and Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals and symbolism. Many Catholic saints are just an evolution of some local pagan god.

Scratch any religion hard enough, and you'll find another underneath.

Scratch any god-or saint-hard enough, and you'll find an older god underneath.

carry on.....


----------



## Josh Oakley

Tez3 said:


> It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
> http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas




His name and mine are different by a character, if I remember.

I believe mine transliterates to Yehoshua, and his to yeshua. But I could be wrong. My Hebrew is pretty rusty.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Shorthand it might be, and one sees 'Xmas' instead of "Christmas' here in the US; some even say it like that; 'ex-muss'.
> 
> Some evangelical Christians take offense at this and see it as a diabolical attempt to remove the word 'Christ' from both terms.  I'm not quite so wrapped around the axle about it.  I would just prefer to see the correct term used



Canuck and Tez would no more associate _kristos_-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."

"G_d. ""

Xtian."


Much less offensive to _them,_ see, but they're not telling anyone that *we* have to write it that way.:lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales?  In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?



There are many claims that Christianity - and Judaism and Islam - all share many similarities with earlier religions.  They similarities are true in many cases.  Of course, that doesn't prove anything one way or another.  If I write a novel that reminds people very much of another novel written long ago, it doesn't prove plagiarism, but it certainly does raise the question.  In the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Creation myth and the Christian Jesus the Christ story, there are many similarities with other religions, other deities.  That's about all we can say about it without crossing from speculation into belief.

It is also true that there are some atheists (and so-called humanists/secularists) who are actually anti-Christian, and they prove this by producing false claims about various pre-Christian religions and declaring them 'the same' as Christianity.  

Bob knows about this - he recently passed on a graphic on FB that purported to show how Christianity stole this and stole that from various religions, all great ha-ha and hee-hee for all the anti-Christians, except that about 80% of it was not actually true.  And that's kind of a problem for me.  Point out flaws in Christianty?  OK, no problem, it has them.  Point out similarity to other pre-Christian religions?  Hey, if they're there, they're there.  Make crap up in an attempt to attack Christianity?  OK, but at that point, let's stop pretending you're anything but an anti-Christian.  Lie to yourself about being 'secular' and 'humanist' and 'not religious' all you want, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.  I know hate when I see it.  FYI, the 'you' in the preceding is meant to be the generic 'you', not you personally.  Just venting.

I don't even mind it when people are anti-Christian.  I just wish they'd be honest about it.  "Oh, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm an atheist." My dying ***, son.  Your hatred is palpable, your attacks are focused.  If you hate Christianity, good for you, but let's not pretend it's something else.   That's cowardly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Canuck and Tez would no more associate _kristos_-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."
> 
> G_d.
> 
> Xtian.
> 
> Much less offensive to them, see, but they're not telling anyone that they have to write it that way.



I would be happy to use the term 'G_d' if that is less offensive.  When I said some evangelical Christians find the term 'Xtian' offensive, I was speaking the truth.  Neither Tez nor I (nor you) get to tell them what they do and do not find offensive.  I'm personally not offended.  

Use whatever term floats your ****ing boat.


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are  a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of _something._ I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............




I don't know... 300-400 years is plenty of time to make someone up. 10 years can get the job done, really.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are many claims that Christianity - and Judaism and Islam - all share many similarities with earlier religions.  They similarities are true in many cases.  Of course, that doesn't prove anything one way or another.  If I write a novel that reminds people very much of another novel written long ago, it doesn't prove plagiarism, but it certainly does raise the question.  In the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Creation myth and the Christian Jesus the Christ story, there are many similarities with other religions, other deities.  That's about all we can say about it without crossing from speculation into belief.
> 
> It is also true that there are some atheists (and so-called humanists/secularists) who are actually anti-Christian, and they prove this by producing false claims about various pre-Christian religions and declaring them 'the same' as Christianity.
> 
> Bob knows about this - he recently passed on a graphic on FB that purported to show how Christianity stole this and stole that from various religions, all great ha-ha and hee-hee for all the anti-Christians, except that about 80% of it was not actually true.  And that's kind of a problem for me.  Point out flaws in Christianty?  OK, no problem, it has them.  Point out similarity to other pre-Christian religions?  Hey, if they're there, they're there.  Make crap up in an attempt to attack Christianity?  OK, but at that point, let's stop pretending you're anything but an anti-Christian.  Lie to yourself about being 'secular' and 'humanist' and 'not religious' all you want, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.  I know hate when I see it.  FYI, the 'you' in the preceding is meant to be the generic 'you', not you personally.  Just venting.
> 
> I don't even mind it when people are anti-Christian.  I just wish they'd be honest about it.  "Oh, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm an atheist." My dying ***, son.  Your hatred is palpable, your attacks are focused.  If you hate Christianity, good for you, but let's not pretend it's something else.   That's cowardly.



How about "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity"? I believe the main tenets of Christianity (the the golden rule stuff-- that is good stuff... And pretty universal) are rubbish, as are the tenets of Judaism, wicca, and any other religion I have studied in depth.

But that doesn't make me anti-Jew, anti-wiccan, or anti-Christian. 

I get your basic point, just wanted to add clarification.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Josh Oakley said:


> I don't know... 300-400 years is plenty of time to make someone up. 10 years can get the job done, really.
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Your viewpoint is in the minority among historical scholars.  Even Richard Dawkins believed that there was 'probably' such a man in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus



> A few modern writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price[191] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, put forward in works such as the movies Religulous and The God Who Wasn't There, is *not held by most professional historians*, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars.[192][193][194][195] *Richard Dawkins wrote that while Jesus probably existed*, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."[196] The philosopher Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: and Peter Gandy argues that Jesus was derived from pagan gods like Dionysus.



Let us put it another way, and return to your original point.  There most definitely *is* evidence that Jesus existed.  Whether you wish to believe it or not is up to you.  But it would be incorrect to say that there is no evidence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Josh Oakley said:


> How about "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity"? I believe the main tenets of Christianity (the the golden rule stuff-- that is good stuff... And pretty universal) are rubbish, as are the tenets of Judaism, wicca, and any other religion I have studied in depth.
> 
> But that doesn't make me anti-Jew, anti-wiccan, or anti-Christian.
> 
> I get your basic point, just wanted to add clarification.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



That's fine - and I accept the clarification.  One can be anti-Christianity without being anti-Christian.  I've had people tell me they thought my Pope is the anti-Christ, but they like *me* just fine.  It's a bit off-putting, but oh well, I'll live.

In any case, I'm fine with someone who is anti-Christian or anti-Christianity.  I just don't like it when they cloak it as something else.  "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm atheist."  Funny, since all they do is run down Christianity all day long.

I've got a couple atheist friends on FB; seems like every other post on their timeline is about this or that horrible thing Christianity has done to them.  I get it; but I don't think atheism is what they seem to think it is.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's fine - and I accept the clarification.  One can be anti-Christianity without being anti-Christian.  I've had people tell me they thought my Pope is the anti-Christ, but they like *me* just fine.  It's a bit off-putting, but oh well, I'll live.
> 
> In any case, I'm fine with someone who is anti-Christian or anti-Christianity.  I just don't like it when they cloak it as something else.  "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm atheist."  Funny, since all they do is run down Christianity all day long.
> 
> I've got a couple atheist friends on FB; seems like every other post on their timeline is about this or that horrible thing Christianity has done to them.  I get it; but I don't think atheism is what they seem to think it is.



Yeah, I will agree on that. I also consider myself to be atheist and humanist. But there are those of us who act like, bitter, jolted ex-lovers.

Me I have better things to do for the most part. Obviously I don't hide my stance on religion but I have a lot of better things to do (sex up my wife, sing awesomely, train in martial arts) than swing a needless hate-on at every passing ear.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

BTW I suspect there was a historical Jesus. I was just pointing out that in 300 years, it wouldn't be hard to make one up.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is evidence that Jesus, the person, existed. If you choose to discount what little evidence does exist, that is your own business, but it does not stop existing because you choose not to believe it.



The first mention of Jesus anywhere, in any source, is in the Gospel of Mark, circa 70-80AD, 40+ years after his death. No contemporary sources exist in any other historical document from his time. For the last three years of religious discussions here, I have asked for links to the sources everyone claims exists, but to date no one has provided such evidence. I ask if you believe such evidence exists, then to please post the links here, if they are indeed legitimate sources, I will gladly read them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> The first mention of Jesus anywhere, in any source, is in the Gospel of Mark, circa 70-80AD, 40+ years after his &#8220;death&#8221;. No contemporary sources exist in any other historical document from his time. For the last three years of religious discussions here, I have asked for links to the sources everyone claims exists, but to date no one has provided such evidence. I ask if you believe such evidence exists, then to please post the links here, if they are indeed legitimate sources, I will gladly read them.



I believe you are mistaking the terms 'proof' and 'evidence'.  There is no proof that Jesus the historical figure existed.  There is evidence, as you stated yourself.  From the time of Jesus actual life?  None that I know of.  That does not mean there is no evidence, it means there is no evidence which you accept as proof.  That's fine, I agree that there is no proof.  But evidence exists, and you say as much yourself.


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> Canuck and Tez would no more associate _kristos_-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."
> 
> "G_d. ""
> 
> Xtian."
> 
> Much less offensive to _them,_ see, but they're not telling anyone that *we* have to write it that way.:lol:





Correct. I do it because I'm prohibited to write the names of other deities. 

Same with G-d. Actually, that one is more complex. there is a way to properly dispose of text containig the names of G-d written on them. I, personnaly, do not want to be a perty i the improper disposal. So I don't write it completely. It definetely applies yo printed copies of the discussions. There i actually a debate on whether a computer display can be considered "permanent" and therefore dubejct to those rules. Most opinions say No. So if Ifillowed majurity opinions and could be absolutely certain that the pages would never be printed, I could write G-d fully.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> The hanged or crucified man resurrected is a common archetype. And people naturally tend to combine  belief systems-it's called syncreticism-rather than adopt one to the exclusion of others, hierarchical insistence on the contrary notwithstanding. So you wind up with Islam keeping pagan beliefs and symbolism, and Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals and symbolism. Many Catholic saints are just an evolution of some local pagan god.
> 
> Scratch any religion hard enough, and you'll find another underneath.
> 
> Scratch any god-or saint-hard enough, and you'll find an older god underneath.
> 
> carry on.....



Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals  seems a big stretch.  Of course I only have Wikpedia to rely on, and perhaps you have more.  But Mithra does not seem to predate Christianity.  And according to Wikipedia, Mithra rose from a rock.  I see nothing there that indicates Mithra being crucified and resurrected.  Now it is interesting that there are things in other beliefs that seemingly can be associated with Christianity, and can be used by Missionaries to win locals to Christianity.  An example would be a belief in some Burma area tribes that they were to look for a man with a book that would tell them things to live by that they had lost.  When missionaries came with the Bible, they accepted that as the book they were to learn from and follow.  Anyone interested in that line of thought might want to read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.  I guess my point being that it is just as plausible that Christian teachings from very early missionaries became corrupted due to lack of teachers, and some parts of it or references to it were passed down but not understood.  

Inasmuch as Christians believe our religion has Jewish underpinnings, and we believe also in the Old Testament, and the New Testament tells us specifically about Christ and his teachings, we would not accept you what you say.  And, if there are any similarities, we would suspect it is the other religions borrowing from Christianity.  

Your statement that Christianity has adopted Mithraic rituals doesn't stand up to what Wikipedia states about Mithra.  Mithra has no surviving religious writings, seemed to accept Sol (the sun) as another god, and apparently only survived from possibly the late 1st century to the 4th century.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are  a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of _something._ I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............



That is painting with a very broad brush sir.  Can you explain why you believe that?



elder999 said:


> Canuck and Tez would no more associate _kristos_-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."
> 
> "G_d. ""
> 
> Xtian."
> 
> 
> Much less offensive to _them,_ see, but they're not telling anyone that *we* have to write it that way.:lol:



I am curious why you used an emoticon showing what I took to be derision at the thought of Jesus of Nasareth.  Jesus was raised there according to the Bible.  BTW, I am sure you must know that Jesus was not a Nasarene.  Was that an intentional distortion or did you really not know?


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Not quite. "Jesus" *is* "Joshua," in Greek. Most of the Hebrews at that time and place were quite Hellenized, actually-gave Paul fits, later on. Of course, their common language was Aramaic, so the name is really _"Jeshua. "_...all via Latin as well, of course. Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. It's no wonder the King James Version-and so many others-are as full of errors and mistranslations as they are.
> 
> "Jesus of Nazareth?" _Really?_ :lfao:
> 
> They all mean "G_d will save," though, as long as I'm trying to be all politically correct and non-offensive, and all.
> 
> As for using "X" for "Christ," Canuck is actually doing it to avoid associations with the word "messiah," which transliterates as "_kristos_," in Greek, or "the anointed one."
> 
> So, by using the "X", he's actually putting the "Christ" right back into "Christmas" and "Christian," as Tez posted....:lol:
> 
> carry on....





Sigh, I know all that. If you use English however Joshua would be correct, Hebrew is a different matter, Joshua in Greek would be in letters my keyboard doesn't do! Same as my keyboard doesn't 'do' Hebrew, well it might but I don't know how to make it do it. My shift partner has fun with the keyboards at word when he converts it into Nepali and Ghurkali. So using Joshua spelt and pronounced that way in English is the best I can do.

The main thing is though that Canuck wasn't trying to be offensive or wind people up.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd said:
			
		

> Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals  seems a big  stretch.  Of course I only have Wikpedia to rely on, and perhaps you  have more.  But Mithra does not seem to predate Christianity.



As  part of the Zoroastrian pantheon, Mithra predates Christianity, by at least six centuries. The  Mithraic cult of the Romans would have been contemporaneous with  Christianity, from the first to the fifth century



			
				oftheherd said:
			
		

> Your statement that Christianity has adopted Mithraic  rituals doesn't stand up to what Wikipedia states about Mithra.  Mithra  has no surviving religious writings, seemed to accept Sol (the sun) as  another god, and apparently only survived from possibly the late 1st  century to the 4th century.



 Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25, a date later co-opted  by Christians as Christ's birthday in 320 AD. A traveling teacher and  master, Mithras also performed miracles. He had twelve companions as  Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras died for man&#8217;s sins and was  resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the  breaking of bread and wine are also shared by both religions, and I won't even get into the cosmological similarities like belief in a soul, heaven and hell



			
				oftheherd said:
			
		

> That is painting with a very broad brush sir.  Can you explain why you believe that?



Something *did* happen. Someone *was* involved. Christianity itself *is* proof of that, as is the Bible. Whether or not the events depicted in the New Testament happened as they are depicted, and constittute "proof" of anything, is a matter of _faith,_ and not archaeological evidence at all.

So, I believe that because I'm a scientist.



			
				oftheherd said:
			
		

> I am curious why you used an emoticon showing what I took to be derision at the thought of Jesus of Nasareth



I used an emoticon because Bil saw fit to tell Canuck to stop using "Xtian" because it my be offensive, when writing "Christian" or telling him to might be just as offensive, that's all.



			
				oftheherd said:
			
		

> Jesus was raised there according to the Bible.



Strange, though, that we have ample archaeological evidence of other places mentioned in the Bible-evidence that is contemporaneous with Jesus-but none in Nazareth. There is, *in fact,* in spite of what they say on the tours in Israel, evidence that at the time of Christ,the place that came to be called Nazareth had been  a necropolis, and, consequently, not a place that would have had a large or principally Hebrew population, due to their strictures on purity. There is,* in fac*t, no extra-Biblical reference to the village of Nazareth until about the beginning of the third century. There is, *in fac*t, a preponderance of archaeological evidence that indicates the place simply didn't exist at the time of Jesus, and that the references in the Bible are mistranslations or redactions from the third century or later.

None of which has anything at all to do with "faith." People can _believe_ what they want to believe, and that makes it _the truth_, which is completely different from *fact*.



			
				oftheherd said:
			
		

> BTW, I am sure you must know that Jesus was not a Nasarene.  Was that  an intentional distortion or did you really not know?



And this is most curious of all-Jesus *is* called "a Nazarene," or "the Nazarene[/i] several times in Greek. On simple linguistic grounds, he *was* _Nazaros_ or, in Hebrew, _Nazir_: "one consecrated,or devoted" or , more properly, a _Nazirite_-one consecrated to God from birth.The Greek term mistranslated as "Jesus of Nazareth" actually more properly reads "Jesus the Nazarene," making it far more likely that the term is associated with a spiritual vow or dedication Jesus made as a Hebrew, and one that concluded with his immersion in water at the hands of John the Baptist.In fact, Jesus is the only person in the New Testament referenced in this way-even other people who are supposed to be (again, probably from redactions) "from Nazareth."

Of course, there's just a little more *fact* in all of that than there is factual evidence that Jesus actually existed, or that he was "of Nazareth," rather than a Nazirite.So, not an intentional distortion at all, merely what I choose to believe, based on a religious studies degree, and having read the Bible in Greek, Latin and Aramaic (and, later, Coptic-*very* different book) You can, of course,_ believe_ what you want, and it's not my intention to turn what's been an otherwise enjoyable and respectable thread into one of Biblical scholarship, or arguing the merits of the Bible itself.

It is, after all, about _faith_-it says so, right there in the title, and I'd be the last person to tell anyone that what they _believe_ is wrong. :asian:


----------



## tkizzle05

To answer your question, I do not claim a religious faith, I'm in no means bound to any mans religious sects.

I do believe in Jesus, and I do believe what is written about him.  I believe in God and all of the wonderful things he has done.  I also believe in what the father sees in us, and that's love.  

A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )

Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.


----------



## elder999

As you probably know, I earned a degree in religious studies-35 years ago, now! So, thanks, Jenna-this is, as a few here already know, a topic of much interest to me, and this has been a good thread.



			
				Jenna said:
			
		

> If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?



Sure.Born again heathen.

I say "born again," because I was raised a Christian. My father and grandfather were Episcopal priests, and, in addition to their trade as sailors, most of my direct ancestors were ministers of one sort or another-my great grandfather was a Presbyterian, and the reasons for his conversion to the Episcopal church are an interesting story for some other time.  On the other hand, their participation in Christianity did not keep them from some other interesting practices-in a day when people still spoke of witchcraft as though it were a crime, the songs that have been passed down to me really might have been thought by all and sundry to be calling up the wind to fill one's sails or to quiet the waves, and Christianity was a good veneer to hide behind. When I sing those songs, it's thought by most to be some quaint family legacy, but prior to my great grandfather, it was thought by many to be quite real...

In any case, my own religious journey has taken me from Episcopal to atheist-no, that's not quite right: I was more pissed off at God than not a believer-to Buddhist-I practiced at the Zen Mountain Monastery in Mt. Tremper, NY-to Native American practices. While I still meditate regularly, and while I'm not averse to occasionally taking my mom to church, most of my regular spiritual life-my "religion"-is American Indian.



			
				Jenna said:
			
		

> If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?



Some things, yes. Some things, no. 

The biggest thing to explain, if I can, is what it means to "walk in beauty." It's to see-or try to see-the sacred in everything, and to see every act as a prayer. Whatever I do and whatever exists in the world is part of the Creator. Sometimes this is as simple as taking a meal, drink of water, or hunting, and sometimes it's as complicated a thing as the Sun Dance or a peyote meeting. For me, the best day to day thing is how absolutely humbled I am by my participation in these things, the people I share it with, and, of course, the Creator, and all of creation itself. 

I think recognizing things greater than oneself is a mandatory practice to qualify as "human."

Sometimes, of course, I'm not "walking in beauty," but that's what I strive for.



			
				Jenna said:
			
		

> ]If so, thank you.  If not, can I ask please, why not?  And if I cannot even coax you into answering _that _then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: _what is the hindrance to your sharing_?



Some things aren't meant to be shared. Some things are secret. I know Navajos who don't even tell their real name: the one they use for social and business interactions, their "legal" name, is not their _true[/i[ name. If I've been instructed not to share something, I won't. There's also a matter of prurient interest-some people might think of peyote meetings as some sort of party-while they can be quite joyous at times, they are serious business, and, like most native religious practices, not particularly easy at all. Sometimes, it's better just to stay off the subject.

For some, of course, openly discussing religion in this way is thought to be rude, or intrusive. For others, such discussions cannot help but become argumentative because they take others viewpoints personally. For myself-well, my father said that whenever people get together to pray it's a good thing. He might not have been quite right about that, but I think it's true most of the time, and I think my own beliefs are enhanced by knowledge of and acknowledging the belief-or lack of belief-of others._


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25, a date later co-opted  by Christians as Christ's birthday in 320 AD. A traveling teacher and  master, Mithras also performed miracles. He had twelve companions as  Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras died for man&#8217;s sins and was  resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the  breaking of bread and wine are also shared by both religions, and I won't even get into the cosmological similarities like belief in a soul, heaven and hell



I suppose you could say Mithras was born of a virgin; if rocks are virgins.

The December 25th myth appears to be a generic holiday of the Romans and not specifically associated to Mithraism.

The 'Sign of the Cross' was a diagonal cross inside a circle.

There were no "12 Disciples."  He could have had no disciples, he existed before Man did (according to Mithraism).  His companions and fellows were other gods and demi-gods.

Mithras was not crucified, but ascended bodily into Heaven.

There was, however, a "Last Supper."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm


----------



## Bill Mattocks

tkizzle05 said:


> Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.



True enough, Jesus considered himself a Jew.  However, he did establish a Church through Peter.  And Paul got the whole Christianity thing going.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> I suppose you could say Mithras was born of a virgin; if rocks are virgins



ACtually, according to Persian mythology,Mithra was born of a virgin, called Anahita, "the mother of God."



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> The December 25th myth appears to be a generic holiday of the Romans and not specifically associated to Mithraism.



Mithras was a sun god. The Sol Invictus cult and Mithraism were directly tied together, as was the cross-it was this cross by which Constantine ruled, by the way, that of the Sol Invictus cult,...Christianity, not so much, though the relationship between the three in Byzantium might well be the reason for his legitimizing Christianity.



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> The 'Sign of the Cross' was a diagonal cross inside a circle.



Apropos of what, exactly? See "Sol Invictus.




			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> There were no "12 Disciples."  He could have had no disciples, he existed before Man did (according to Mithraism).  His companions and fellows were other gods and demi-gods



And there were 12 of them.



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Mithras was not crucified, but ascended bodily into Heaven.



After he was crucified on a tree, only to rise from the dead on Mar. 25th.

Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want-and there is actually less known about Mithraism than there is about early Christianity-but that doesn't change the *facts*. Try to accept for a minute that of course a Catholic webpage is going to argue for the exclusivity of the various elements of the Christ mythology, whether those elements are in traditions that predate Christianity or not, Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc. Since Mithraism and Christianity were contemporaneous, it's likely that there was a fair amount of cross-pollination, in part because of similarities. Communion like ritual meals are part and parcel of all religions, especially mystery religions like Mithraism-and Christianity,a that time, was a mystery religion. 

Mithraism also, by the way, had a head-priest called a "Pope."

And, of course, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't get confused about facts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> ACtually, according to Persian mythology,Mithras was born of a virgin, called Anahita, "the mother of God."



Seriously, this was debunked in the early 1920's.  Mithras was not born of Anahita, in Persian or any other mythology.  There is a single inscription on a temple that describes Mithras as the son of Anahita.  One inscription does not a fact make.  Of the few remaining pieces of the Mithraic cult that remain to us today, Mithra is described as having been born of a 'mother rock'.



> Mithras was a sun god. The Sol Invictus cult and Mithraism were directly tied together, as was the cross-it was this cross by which Constantine ruled, by the way, that of the Sol Invictus cult,...Christianity, not so much, though the relationship between the three in Byzantium might well be the reason for his legitimizing Christianity.



They were tied to each other at a certain point in time; which would have been much later than the Persian worship of Mithras; so you're cherry-picking your facts and jamming them together to show a relationship that isn't there.  Roman soldiers worshipping Mithras would not have considered him the son of Anahita, whom they would not have even known of at that time.



> And there were 12 of them.



I have not read that anywhere.  There is a temple drawing of him that shows him surrounded by the 12 signs of the Zodiac, however.



> After he was crucified on a tree, only to rise from the dead on Mar. 25th.



No, he was taken to heaven alive and well, in a chariot.

However, the early Christian writer, Tertullian, wrote of Roman soldiers who were Mithra worshippers and celebrated a 'resurrection ritual,' and scholars commonly believe now that this represented Christian influence on Mithraism.



> Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want-and there is actually less known about Mithraism than there is about early Christianity-but that doesn't change the *facts*. Try to accept for a minute that of course a Catholic webpage is going to argue for the exclusivity of the various elements of the Christ mythology, whether those elements are in traditions that predate Christianity or not, Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc.
> 
> And, of course, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't get confused about facts.



Ditto.  I don't doubt this is what you studied in college, but times have changed, and many of the assumptions that were once passed down as fact are now rejected by the historical community.

This is not simply reflected in Catholic dogma; it's clearly represented in the historical record as we now understand it.

FYI, Horus is said to have the same attributes as Mithras by anti-Christians.  Also untrue.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Ditto.  I don't doubt this is what you studied in college, but times have changed, and many of the assumptions that were once passed down as fact are now rejected by the historical community.
> 
> This is not simply reflected in Catholic dogma; it's clearly represented in the historical record as we now understand it.
> 
> FYI, Horus is said to have the same attributes as Mithras by anti-Christians.  Also untrue.



Oddly enough, it's what I studied at Marist College....:lol:

And I'm not "anti-Christian." I'm not "anti" anything.....

(BTW, this is me, not arguing with you anymore.....)


----------



## Tez3

tkizzle05 said:


> To answer your question, I do not claim a religious faith, I'm in no means bound to any mans religious sects.
> 
> I do believe in Jesus, and I do believe what is written about him. I believe in God and all of the wonderful things he has done. I also believe in what the father sees in us, and that's love.
> 
> A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )
> 
> Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.




You won't lose 'points' for your opinion here! I'm curious to know though why you think religious people these days follow their faith 'blindly' and unquestionly? The majority of people from all the main religions do question their beliefs and what they follow, I thiink you can see that from post here. Cults are precisely that, often little to do with religion and more to do with ego and power trips by their leaders.


----------



## john2054

Arguing about little details won't get us anywhere. Personally my multi faith journey has taken my prayers into Hindu temples, mosques and other muslim places of worship, and out for long country walks not to mention to my garden where every flower i lovingly nurture is its own act of faith in its own little way. More on this later?


----------



## CanuckMA

tkizzle05 said:


> A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )




Not always. Jews hire and fire their "leaders". And in most Orthodox congregations, a fair percentage of the men have recieved _smicha_, ordination, and can be addressed as Rabbi. They just chose to work at semething else. So the congretional Rabbi can't just spout tings off, a lot of his congregants know as much and sometimes more than he does. 

Jews don't blindly follow. We argue, incessently. There is a lot of truth in "2 Jews, 3 opinions".


----------



## Tez3

john2054 said:


> Arguing about little details won't get us anywhere. Personally my multi faith journey has taken my prayers into Hindu temples, mosques and other muslim places of worship, and out for long country walks not to mention to my garden where every flower i lovingly nurture is its own act of faith in its own little way. *More on this later*?



No thank you.


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> Not always. Jews hire and fire their "leaders". And in most Orthodox congregations, a fair percentage of the men have recieved _smicha_, ordination, and can be addressed as Rabbi. They just chose to work at semething else. So the congretional Rabbi can't just spout tings off, a lot of his congregants know as much and sometimes more than he does.
> 
> Jews don't blindly follow. We argue, incessently. There is a lot of truth in "2 Jews, 3 opinions".



Only 3? bah, we have four here   At least we don't actually go to war with each other like some other religions do!


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are  a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of _something._ I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............





elder999 said:


> ACtually, according to Persian mythology,Mithra was born of a virgin, called Anahita, "the mother of God."
> 
> 
> 
> Mithras was a sun god. The Sol Invictus cult and Mithraism were directly tied together, as was the cross-it was this cross by which Constantine ruled, by the way, that of the Sol Invictus cult,...Christianity, not so much, though the relationship between the three in Byzantium might well be the reason for his legitimizing Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> Apropos of what, exactly? See "Sol Invictus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there were 12 of them.
> 
> 
> 
> After he was crucified on a tree, only to rise from the dead on Mar. 25th.
> 
> Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want-and there is actually less known about Mithraism than there is about early Christianity-but that doesn't change the *facts*. Try to accept for a minute that of course a Catholic webpage is going to argue for the exclusivity of the various elements of the Christ mythology, whether those elements are in traditions that predate Christianity or not, Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc. Since Mithraism and Christianity were contemporaneous, it's likely that there was a fair amount of cross-pollination, in part because of similarities. Communion like ritual meals are part and parcel of all religions, especially mystery religions like Mithraism-and Christianity,a that time, was a mystery religion.
> 
> Mithraism also, by the way, had a head-priest called a "Pope."
> 
> And, of course, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't get confused about facts.



Well sir, I guess you and I will just have to disagree about 'facts.'  The reading I have done since you brought up this about Mithra just doesn't agree with what you are saying.  I am also surprised to hear that a "god-man's" death is so common.  Not so common as for me to have learned of it.  Your statement makes it seem like almost all religions have that belief.  You also mention a Pope.  It makes it seem you are a few clicks ahead of me in searching the web.  There was one site that mentioned that there was some reports of a head to the religion that was pope-like.  Which got it from the other, Mithraism from Catholicism, or Catholicism from Mithraism?  I didn't see anything about that.

Even so, I would wonder how much might be influenced by Christianity?  It all just seems too pat to me.  I don't know why you mentioned a "Catholic" webpage.  Only one place I checked on line was Catholic.  And none of them stated Mithra was the sun-god, although some did mention there was a sun-god in the religion as well as Mithra.  I wonder if you have some agenda.  Your statements don't always agree. You mentioned that Mithra was a Persian god predating Christianity by several hundred years, then that they were contemporaneous.  You also expect me and those who read what you say to believe that people who valued their Judaism would so easily accept a Persian belief system, and believe another Jewish person was a Persian god in fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies.  Just doesn't work for me.  If it works for you, be happy with it.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> Not always. Jews hire and fire their "leaders". And in most Orthodox congregations, a fair percentage of the men have recieved _smicha_, ordination, and can be addressed as Rabbi. They just chose to work at semething else. So the congretional Rabbi can't just spout tings off, a lot of his congregants know as much and sometimes more than he does.
> 
> Jews don't blindly follow. We argue, incessently. There is a lot of truth in "2 Jews, 3 opinions".



I hadn't heard that before, mostly I guess just because I hadn't tried to find out.  But I am not surprised.  I had seen Rabbis portrayed as if that weren't so.  So much for uninformed non-Jewish authors I guess.  Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## Buka

Looking at all the different religions.....

Do you think everyone is praying to the same entity/God? 

Or, concerning a religion that's different from yours, do you think the people are praying to an empty seat?


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> . I am also surprised to hear that a "god-man's" death is so common. Not so common as for me to have learned of it. .



You seem to like wikipedia. Here.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> You seem to like wikipedia. Here.



lol.  I wouldn't say I like wikikpedia, but it is a handy quick reference.  However, it must always be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't have time to look at all the instances give in that article.  But the only one I saw that was "Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc." a sacrifice for mankind, was Jesus.  There may be others there, but of the about ten I looked at, it was usually just fighting between gods, that resulted in the death of one of the gods, and some way of bringing them back to life.  Nothing for mankind, no crucifixion, nor thought of consequences of any kind for mankind.  Some of the instances were of religions that post date Christianity.  There may well be some there that are as you said, but as I said, I don't have the time, nor frankly, the inclination, to search all of them.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Only 3? bah, we have four here   At least we don't actually go to war with each other like some other religions do!



And the Seder arguments over soft/hard matzah balls or plain/sweet gefilte is what exactly?


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> And the Seder arguments over soft/hard matzah balls or plain/sweet gefilte is what exactly?




The stuff of life my dear! As Socrates said 'the unexamined life is not worth living' we just like to do it out loud and everyone having a say!


----------



## Flying Crane

Jenna said:


> Thank you again Michael. I can picture you as that teenager and it must have been a complex time for you trying to strike out as an independent young man while wanting still to please your family. I am not surprised you reacted as you did. *I wonder if the choice had TRULY been yours might things have been different.* We will never know I think.



I think the choice would not have been different.  From my youngest memories, I know that I never felt drawn to an active church life of any kind.  It has been clear to me for a very long time.

Relevant to this topic: my parents just left a few days ago after coming to visit.  It was a good visit, we did some fun things, had some good times.  It is rare that I see them more than once a year, and sometimes less than that.  On the last day before they left for the airport, my mom caught me alone for a few minutes and started talking to me about making room for god in my life.  I felt ambushed.  I'll be 41 years old in three weeks and my mom can't seem to leave it alone and allow that I will make my own decisions, as an adult.  It is tremendously frustrating and went a long way to sour an otherwise good visit.


----------



## john2054

Tez3 said:


> No thank you.



Tez3, not withstanding what i have already said, and in contrast to your negative post I am going to go on about my garden for a bit now. Partly because the last two years which i have spent in hospital i have had to do without. So the first two plants which i put in were hardy vine. I thought i might not have soil under the stones which layer my surface, but my mum used the logic that seeing as there were weeds there, there must be soil under too. And do you know what? She was right!

So a little more digging and i have now planted some herbs including Rosemary and possibly mint, some strawberries, some dwarf Lupin (nice to look at without flowers and i think they will be stunners when they do bloom), other assorted bedding plants to add colour (primula prim roses and the like), and some ferns which I think were getting accustomed to being kept indoors the outdoor elements have been a shock. However there is still some green at the base of the plant, and i am hoping after a season or two they will begin to pick up again.

I realise that I have just done precisely what you asked me not to Tez, but I don't know what little things give you pleasure Tez, but I can comfortably say that my garden is a big hitter in that category for me. Church is nice, to spend time with the fellow congregation, and hopefully you feel the same about your place of worship (synagogue?), but for me well you can't beat getting down and dirty in the soil, digging up a weed or two and putting them in. Yeah baby!


----------



## Carol

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suppose you could say Mithras was born of a virgin; if rocks are virgins.
> 
> The December 25th myth appears to be a generic holiday of the Romans and not specifically associated to Mithraism.



FYI -- here is a Catholic resource that references both the Romans and "syncreticism with Mithraism"  Personally I learned the date with is ties to Mithraism, and its importance as the early Christians spread through Persia.


> *Natalis Invicti*
> 
> The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated  on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our  December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1[SUP]2[/SUP], p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian  in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is  marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It  would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Christian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).




http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm


----------



## Josh Oakley

Buka said:


> Looking at all the different religions.....
> 
> Do you think everyone is praying to the same entity/God?
> 
> Or, concerning a religion that's different from yours, do you think the people are praying to an empty seat?




I think they're all praying to an empty seat, but prayer is really more for the benefit of the praying person, not for the deity. So there is SOME value in prayer.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Carol

Flying Crane said:


> I think the choice would not have been different.  From my youngest memories, I know that I never felt drawn to an active church life of any kind.  It has been clear to me for a very long time.
> 
> Relevant to this topic: my parents just left a few days ago after coming to visit.  It was a good visit, we did some fun things, had some good times.  It is rare that I see them more than once a year, and sometimes less than that.  On the last day before they left for the airport, my mom caught me alone for a few minutes and started talking to me about making room for god in my life.  I felt ambushed.  I'll be 41 years old in three weeks and my mom can't seem to leave it alone and allow that I will make my own decisions, as an adult.  It is tremendously frustrating and went a long way to sour an otherwise good visit.



I think we have some of the same relatives....


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> . You also mention a Pope. It makes it seem you are a few clicks ahead of me in searching the web. There was one site that mentioned that there was some reports of a head to the religion that was pope-like. Which got it from the other, Mithraism from Catholicism, or Catholicism from Mithraism? I didn't see anything about that.



It&#8217;s _Latin_, fer Chrissakes. :lfao:

_Pope_=*papa*="father." 

The title is used by several churches, including the Coptic church. It was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Byzantine Church.
It was used by several mystery schools, at least those that didn&#8217;t have a woman at their head. It was used in Mithraism, which didn&#8217;t even have woman members.

The first Bishop of Rome to use the title occured sometime after 300 A.D., either Marcillinus, around 300 A.D., or as late as John I, around 600 A.D. So, all those others had it first&#8230;..



oftheherd1 said:


> . Even so, I would wonder how much might be influenced by Christianity? It all just seems too pat to me.



I&#8217;ll get to this-if it "all just seems to pat" to you, well, who has an agenda, again?



oftheherd1 said:


> . I don't know why you mentioned a "Catholic" webpage. Only one place I checked on line was Catholic.



Er&#8230;&#8230;*Bill* posted a Catholic webpage to refute what I said about Mithras. Interestingly, Carol posted a Catholic webpage that supports part of it.



oftheherd1 said:


> . And none of them stated Mithra was the sun-god, although some did mention there was a sun-god in the religion as well as Mithra.



The Sun is one of Mithra&#8217;s companions, whom he is depicted dining with. 

Mithras is also identified with the Sun in Leo, by some scholars.

Called "_*The Light of the World*_," Mithras was identified-in Rome-with Sol Invictus.
&#12288;


oftheherd1 said:


> . I wonder if you have some agenda.



You somehow missed the part about my lineage-that my father-who I loved *very* much-was an Episcopal priest, as was my grandfather. Funny story: between the ages of 4 and 6, I&#8217;d use blankets as "vestments," put a dust-pan atop the broom, and have "processions" around the apartment, playing "priest." If anything, I really don&#8217;t care what people choose to believe-if their religion provides a framework for ordering their lives-if they treat others as they want to be treated, then I don&#8217;t really care..

I&#8217;ve liked nearly every Mormon I&#8217;ve ever met, and admire how they *order* their lives. If I can respect members of a religion that is not quite 200 years old, and whose founder was a convicted con-man from New York named *Joe Smith,* of all things, how could I not respect Christianity? It&#8217;s just not for me.

I have a deep and abiding love for the teachings of the rabbi, _Yeshua_, though-I only wish that more people who call themselves "Christians" actually followed them-such is human nature, though. I have a deep and abiding respect for the office of the_ Holy Father, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Bishop of Rome, Successor of the Chief of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the Vatican State_-it represents a nearly 2,000 year tradition-regardless of the current or past status of the "Catholic Church." 

I have no "agenda," other than the truth-and perhaps, the *facts*-search for my posts on religion-or the "68 degree rule"- to understand-I have no particular axe to grind, and don&#8217;t care whom or what a person bends their knee to, as long as they treat others the way they expect to be treated.

(You should do a search here on the "68 degree rule" to understand the difference, between "_truth_ and *facts*.:lol: )

You can keep your _truth_, as far as I&#8217;m concerned, regardless of the *facts*. :wink:



oftheherd1 said:


> . Your statements don't always agree. You mentioned that Mithra was a Persian god predating Christianity by several hundred years, then that they were contemporaneous.



Contemporaneous in Rome. Predating Christianity in Persia.What&#8217;s so difficult about that? :lol: Doubtless, brought to Rome by soldiers who encountered him in Persia or Syria, or somewhere in the east, but rising full flower as a somewhat different thing in Rome.



oftheherd1 said:


> . You also expect me and those who read what you say to believe that people who valued their Judaism would so easily accept a Persian belief system, and believe another Jewish person was a Persian god in fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies. Just doesn't work for me. If it works for you, be happy with it.



No odder, really, than "people who valued their _Judaism_" embracing the intricate iconography of "Christianity" as being anything other than "graven imagery," and a violation of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Commandment. Remember, prior to around the third or fourth century, Christianity was primarily a "Jewish cult," albeit one that accepted some gentile membership-though there was a great deal of conflict over this-and one whose practice centered primarily around table fellowship-ritual meals-celebrated in household churches.

Of course, the one thing we know from the various _Mithraeum_ was that the *Romans* had no such compunctions about graven images-they are full of images of Mithras, as well as other gods. 

More to the point, human nature has demonstrated, across the globe, and at various times in history, that mankind will mix and match their deities and religions at will. Thus it is that in Korea, one can meet a practitioner of native Korean shamanism who is also a Buddhist, and in Tibet, Nepal or Bhutan find the same, but with a differing form of Buddhism. One can find Native American ritual, like the peyote ceremony (in some parts of the U.S.) that has absorbed the Christianity brought by missionaries-even in Hawaii, if one knows where to look. One can find Russian Orthodox adherents that are also practitioners of *true* Siberian shamanism, just to give this post a left-handed martial arts related relevance. In Indonesia, one can find an _Islamic_ culture that has absorbed elements of Hinduism, Buddhism and animism.

It&#8217;s called _syncreticism_, and it&#8217;s what humans do-given a chance-when it comes to religion.

So it is that we find that "Easter," that highest of holy days in the Christian calendar, the day of Christ&#8217;s resurrection, the "movable feast," takes it&#8217;s name from a pagan godess and her celebration-one marked by the giving of eggs, and rabbits as gifts. Thus it is that we find Christmas, the celebration of the baby Jesus&#8217; birth, celebrated on the holiday consecrated to the sun god, and marked by various pagan rituals like decoration with a tree, pine boughs and holly. Thus it is that we find numerous "saints" to really be ancient local gods predating Christianity and masquerading under the veneer of Christianity. Thus it is that we find Mexico&#8217;s Virgin of Guadelupe to not be the "Virgin Mary," but the Aztec goddess _Tonantzin_, masquerading as a the "mother of God."

None of which, of course, is my fault-not an agenda, just the product of scholarship, really.

As far as the relationship between Mirthraism and Christianity goes, Bill isn&#8217;t quite right-not just because of the Christian/Catholic apologetic nature of his sources, but because we don&#8217;t know-the relationship between Mithraism and Christianity hasn't been "debunked," it's been debated, disputed and denied, but it persists in scholarship. In the end, we really don&#8217;t know nearly enough about Mithraism to establish what it all means-we don't know enough about early Christianity, and even *less* about Mithraism. Sources give Mithras as being born of a virgin, *and* he&#8217;s _depicted_ rising from a rock-we don&#8217;t know what that really means, and, when it comes to "gods"-hardly "rational beings bound by logic" in any mythology-is it really so unusual that their birth might be depicted in two, or even three ways, or even said to be both? We can&#8217;t even say what the Roman Mithraists _said_ in secret about Mithras-especially given that only men were members. What we do know is that it was contemporaneous with early Christianity-_proto_-Christianity , if you will, a "Jewish cult," at that, but that it was quite prevalent alongside the Sol Invictus cult at the time when Constantine-head priest of Sol Invictus by virtue of his office- legitimized Christianity. For a polytheistic people, what could be more natural than merging their Mithraist and Sun cult practices with their new religion, Christianity? 

Just sayin&#8230;&#8230;:lol:

If I do have an "agenda," it's a product of having read the various forms of the CHristian Bible, and finding the various errors in translation and interpretation therein-and the damnable persecutions and bullying that result from it. We'd all be a little bit better off if we could just follow that "New York Religion," I follow, and mind our own business.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> You also expect me and those who read what you say to believe that people who valued their Judaism would so easily accept a Persian belief system, and believe another Jewish person was a Persian god in fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies.  Just doesn't work for me.  If it works for you, be happy with it.




Problem with that is that Tanach does not prophesize anything Xtians say it does.


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> Problem with that is that Tanach does not prophesize anything Xtians say it does.



Interestingly, the New Testament reflects this:



> Is not this the carpenter,* the son of Mary*, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.-*Matthew 6:3*



Which is kinda like saying, in a culture where He'd have been" _Yeshua ben Joseph,_ "Jesus, son of Joseph"-_Isn't this Mary's *bastard*?" _

Not of "the line of David," at all-especially since Joseph had been cuckolded by the deity......


----------



## CanuckMA

And you know how to prove Jesus was Jewish, right?

He lived at home until he was 33
He tought his mother was a virgin
And he went into his father's business.


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> And you know how to prove Jesus was Jewish, right?
> 
> He lived at home until he was 33
> He tought his mother was a virgin
> And he went into his father's business.



you left out rowdy fellow and presumably hot head....

at least at times....


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> And you know how to prove Jesus was Jewish, right?
> 
> He lived at home until he was 33
> He tought his mother was a virgin
> And he went into his father's business.




And not necessarily a "carpenter." The Greek word is "_tekton_," which means "craftsman," or "builder." Could've been a mason, a jeweler or a tinsmith......or a _potter_. I'd like that.....


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> And not necessarily a "carpenter." The Greek word is "_tekton_," which means "craftsman," or "builder." Could've been a mason, a jeweler or a tinsmith......or a _potter_. I'd like that.....



As my mother likes to put it: "A carpenter? Jews aren't usually carpenters; we HIRE carpenters!"

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> Looking at all the different religions.....
> 
> Do you think everyone is praying to the same entity/God?
> 
> Or, concerning a religion that's different from yours, do you think the people are praying to an empty seat?



Well, I don't think so.  My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods.  So I would say that those who pray to other entities are praying to false gods.  What those think who pray to other entities, you would have to solicit a response from them.


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I don't think so.  My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods.  So I would say that those who pray to other entities are praying to false gods.  What those think who pray to other entities, you would have to solicit a response from them.



well, pretty much that your efforts are wasted...because theirs is the only true one....


----------



## Carol

In the end, there can be only one.

Er....wait, that was Highlander.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I don't think so. My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods. .



Actually, the Old Testament doesn't *say* that at all. The prevailing message is that the God _you_ *take* to be "the only true God," is the _God of the Hebrews._ Nothing more. Plenty of room for other gods-and, in fact, appearances by them that demonstrate the Hebrew God's superiority, but not that He is the "only true God."



> *Deut.6:4*: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, He is _*our*_ God, the Lord is One"



The New Testament, of course, says things somewhat differently.....


----------



## Jenna

*ONE OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD* known by many names, having representation from within many cultures and existing in many contexts; borne of many histories and many fables, portrayed with a common core, contradicted only through the writings of cultural and contextual and historical isolation.

*ONE GOD*.  To think otherwise is a self-negating faith in a self-negating deity.

*ONE GOD*.  To assume that your god is the only god is a valid and true assumption.  Just as it is also true for EVERYONE that shares such a thought.  

To think that your god is the only god and that others sharing such a thought are wrong is to view totality through A VERY SMALL FRAME.

Just a statement of my opinion informed by time and finiteness and hope and faith.

Wishes.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> *ONE OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD* known by many names, having representation from within many cultures and existing in many contexts; borne of many histories and many fables, portrayed with a common core, contradicted only through the writings of cultural and contextual and historical isolation.
> 
> *ONE GOD*. To think otherwise is a self-negating faith in a self-negating deity.
> 
> *ONE GOD*. To assume that your god is the only god is a valid and true assumption. Just as it is also true for EVERYONE that shares such a thought.
> 
> To think that your god is the only god and that others sharing such a thought are wrong is to view totality through A VERY SMALL FRAME.
> 
> Just a statement of my opinion informed by time and finiteness and hope and faith.
> 
> Wishes.



Around here, people say _"*God"* is too big for one religion._


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> Around here, people say _"*God"* is too big for one religion._


Then I think around there that people must have perception that transcends being human and being small.  Perhaps that is rare.  I think it is too rare.  Though perhaps it is not and I am not looking hard enough.  I think there is peace within the mindset of those people around there.  And peace like that within a mind can only extend to peace outside of that mind.  Thank you for your post.  I am grateful to you.


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> well, pretty much that your efforts are wasted...because theirs is the only true one....



I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.



elder999 said:


> Actually, the Old Testament doesn't *say* that at all. The prevailing message is that the God _you_ *take* to be "the only true God," is the _God of the Hebrews._ Nothing more. Plenty of room for other gods-and, in fact, appearances by them that demonstrate the Hebrew God's superiority, but not that He is the "only true God."
> 
> 
> 
> The New Testament, of course, says things somewhat differently.....



It seems to me you are quick to say things that are not true, or only partially true. Or, you try to take things on a side tracK to move away from things I have pointed out you have said. I probably will not answer all of your statements in that vein. I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity. 

That is not what I do. I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that. I hope things I say don't come across any other way. If they do, I would ask anyone to tell me so in order that I can phrase what I am saying differently if possible. 

But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith. It may do so for those with weak or no faith in God who are searching for answers. That would be sad. But I will not bear the burden of that.

However, for the above:

2 Chronicles 15:3
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

Jeremiah 10:10
But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> Problem with that is that Tanach does not prophesize anything Xtians say it does.



That is an interesting statement sir.  Can you provide some examples?

Thanks.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Interestingly, the New Testament reflects this:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is kinda like saying, in a culture where He'd have been" _Yeshua ben Joseph,_ "Jesus, son of Joseph"-_Isn't this Mary's *bastard*?" _
> 
> Not of "the line of David," at all-especially since Joseph had been cuckolded by the deity......



My goodness, in line with what I said in my post above, where do you get somebody asking "Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" to be them saying Jesus was illegitimate?

BTW, from what little I know (from reading, not personal knowledge), carpenter in Greek can have several meanings, depending on several factors, and one of them is an artisan in wood, or in other words, a carpenter.

I wish to point that out for subsequent readers of this thread to show what I believe to be true, so that subsequent readers will not be left with your comments only.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> My goodness, in line with what I said in my post above, where do you get somebody asking "Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" to be them saying Jesus was illegitimate?



By not calling him "the son of Joseph," who was his father on earth, and the husband of his mother-by calling him "the son of Mary," they were, in fact, idiomatically saying "isn't this Mary's bastard?"



oftheherd1 said:


> BTW, from what little I know (from reading, not personal knowledge), carpenter in Greek can have several meanings, depending on several factors, and one of them is an artisan in wood, or in other words, a carpenter.



Except the word isn't "carpenter." 

&#964;&#941;&#954;&#964;&#969;&#957;, "tekton,"= *craftsman*.or _artisan_.Literally, "one who works with their hands."

 "Worker in wood?"sure like a carpenter or sculptor, also a mason, or _poet_ even. It's more about class level in society than actual occupation.



oftheherd1 said:


> I wish to point that out for subsequent readers of this thread to show what I believe to be true, so that subsequent readers will not be left with your comments only.



And I'll keep pointing out what I believe to be true, so subsequent readers will not be left with _your_ comments opnly...:lol:


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity.



You misunderstand-it's not an "attack" at all-it's just the truth. Not _your_ truth, necessarily. 

I love Christianity-I'm just not much of a Christian.



oftheherd1 said:


> I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that.



Pretty sure that's exactly what I did. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.



oftheherd1 said:


> But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith.



That's not my intention-it's as I've said several times, _you can believe what you want._



oftheherd1 said:


> However, for the above:
> 
> 2 Chronicles 15:3
> Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.



2 Chronicles, 15:*4*
But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD *God of Israel*, and sought him, he was found of them



oftheherd1 said:


> Jeremiah 10:10
> But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.



Jeremiah 10:*11
*Thus shall ye say unto them, t*he gods that have not made the heavens and the earth*, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens

(Showing, in fact, that there *are "*other gods.")



oftheherd1 said:


> John 17:3
> And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



And all of those god's prophets and adherents, as others have said, will call their God "the only true God," why would Jesus (who says these words) be any different?


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.




Directed at you.

Simple:
You assume that your scripture is the one and only, so your deity is the one and only.
So do those other guys.
Well, those monothe..... the once with only one guy in the Pantheon anyhow.

That's why those holy wars are so much fun: each side is just SURE He is on their side....

My take on the thing?
We are mere gnats, floating around on a speck of dust in the universe.
The thought of somebody keeping track of us in comforting, but to assume we hold the answers is ridiculous.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me you are quick to say things that are not true, or only partially true. Or, you try to take things on a side tracK to move away from things I have pointed out you have said. I probably will not answer all of your statements in that vein. I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity.
> 
> That is not what I do. I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that. I hope things I say don't come across any other way. If they do, I would ask anyone to tell me so in order that I can phrase what I am saying differently if possible.
> 
> But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith. It may do so for those with weak or no faith in God who are searching for answers. That would be sad. But I will not bear the burden of that.
> 
> However, for the above:
> 
> 2 Chronicles 15:3
> Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.
> 
> Jeremiah 10:10
> But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
> 
> John 17:3
> And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.




I think one problem is that you take the religious book/writings of another religion and use them as your own so what Jews believe in is actually very important and as they are the 'owners' of that intellectual property surely you cannot read into it more than they do? What's said in the 'Old Testament' is addressed to the Jewish people only. I wouldn't seek to change anyone's religion but it constantly amazes me to see non Jews take what was written for _us_ and mangle it, read into it and generally claim it to be theirs to some very odd ends. Blood transfusions are refused, puritan lifestyles espoused, wars over the meaning of bread etc etc. I'll admit it baffles me quite often!


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> That is an interesting statement sir.  Can you provide some examples?
> 
> Thanks.



To start with your translation is wrong in several places.

Then the selected quotes of both Isaiah completely the metaphor used that places Israel's relationship to G-d as a parent-child relationship.

And lastly, the Prophets were not forecasting events hundred's of year in the future. Their concerns were a lot more immediae than that.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> I think one problem is that you take the religious book/writings of another religion and use them as your own so what Jews believe in is actually very important and as they are the 'owners' of that intellectual property surely you cannot read into it more than they do? What's said in the 'Old Testament' is addressed to the Jewish people only. I wouldn't seek to change anyone's religion but it constantly amazes me to see non Jews take what was written for _us_ and mangle it, read into it and generally claim it to be theirs to some very odd ends. Blood transfusions are refused, puritan lifestyles espoused, wars over the meaning of bread etc etc. I'll admit it baffles me quite often!



And he believes that the KJV, a politically motivated bad translation of a translation, to be authoritative.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> By not calling him "the son of Joseph," who was his father on earth, and the husband of his mother-by calling him "the son of Mary," they were, in fact, idiomatically saying "isn't this Mary's bastard?"



I don't know that to be an idiom.  I have never run across that as an explanation, but may search if I have the time.  Or perphaps CanuckMA or Tez3 can comment on that.

Regardless, it is not my belief.  I have read, and it seems reasonable, that Joesph may have already passed by this time, which was at least 30 years after the birth of Jesus.  They would then simply be referring to His still living mother and not referring to His earthly father who was not around.




elder999 said:


> Except the word isn't "carpenter."
> 
> &#964;&#941;&#954;&#964;&#969;&#957;, "tekton,"= *craftsman*.or _artisan_. "Worker in wood,"sure like a carpenter or sculptor, also a mason, or _poet_ even. It's more about class level in society than actual occupation.



Perhaps I didn't phrase that so you would understand.  I am aware of the Greek.  It isn't actually &#964;&#941;&#954;&#964;&#969;&#957; either.  It is &#8001; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#964;&#941;&#954;&#964;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; but yes, it comes from the same root.  That from Matthew 13:55.  It is &#8001; &#964;&#941;&#954;&#964;&#969;&#957; in Mark 6:3, but that isn't what you quoted.  Regardless, from my reading, it can be interpreted as 'carpenter' as well as some other things, apparently based on other factors.




elder999 said:


> And I'll keep pointing out what I believe to be true, so subsequent readers will not be left with _your_ comments opnly...:lol:



That's fair as long as you show it as your belief, from whatever source.



elder999 said:


> You misunderstand-it's not an "attack" at all-it's just the truth. Not _your_ truth, necessarily.
> 
> I love Christianity-I'm just not much of a Christian.



That's fine.  I will accept you didn't mean it as an attack.  It just seemed to me it did.  And of course, it is your truth, just as what I say is sometimes my truth.




elder999 said:


> Pretty sure that's exactly what I did. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.



If that is what you meant, I accept that.  I just didn't see it that way.  It does not hurt my feelings really.  Just didn't seem fair to those who may be influenced by what we say.  Anyway, I will try to be more discerning.



elder999 said:


> That's not my intention-it's as I've said several times, _you can believe what you want._




Thank you, because of course, I will.  I expect you to do no less.



elder999 said:


> 2 Chronicles, 15:*4*
> But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD *God of Israel*, and sought him, he was found of them



But that doesn't change what I said, and what I said refuted what you said.



elder999 said:


> Jeremiah 10:11
> Thus shall ye say unto them, t*he gods that have not made the heavens and the earth*, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens
> 
> (Showing, in fact, that there *are "*other gods.")



That wasn't the point.  The point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God.  Yes there were other "gods" (small letter 'g').  They were never considered the true God.



elder999 said:


> And all of those god's prophets and adherents, as others have said, will call their God "the only true God," why would Jesus be any different?



Because it is what the Bible says.  It is also what I believe.  But again, the point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God.  It does in the first two verses I related, as well as the third, where Jesus is also mentioned.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> That wasn't the point. The point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God. Yes there were other "gods" (small letter 'g'). They were never considered the true God.



Oh, the Old Testament says he's "the one true God," alright.

The one true God _*of the Hebrews, *which is what I said._




oftheherd1 said:


> Because it is what the Bible says. It is also what I believe. But again, the point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God.



The Old Testament is what I said didn't quite say that, as I've posted. I also said that the New Testament said something different:



oftheherd1 said:


> It does in the first two verses I related, as well as the third, where Jesus is also mentioned.



Which is in the New Testament, and is Jesus mentioning _himself._


----------



## Tez3

Bit confused again, what did Joseph pass?

Again though even on oftheherd's 'translations' it says G-d of *Israel ie the Jewish people, *the country even if you wish, whatever but it doesn't say G-d of the Gentiles! ours, of Israel, the Jews, us lot. Why do gentiles get to claim ownership and decide what was said? The Covenant was with the Jews not anyone who wandered by and thought 'Ere I'll ave bit of this'. We don't take the the Bhagavad Gita, start translating it and turning it into a different religion so why do people take the 'Old Testament' and claim it's the word of G-d _to them_ when they aren't Jews? sorry but it's something that puzzles me and at times annoys me when things are 'quoted' and used to justify things that that simply shouldn't be justified.


The KJV has had a huge effect on the English language and how it's used but as a translation it's pretty pants. When Shakespeare wrote his plays he was anxious not to offend the Queen, Richard the Third is a masterpiece of propaganda against Richard who was nothing like the character in the play, it was wise not to upset royalty in those days and the KJV even with it's beautiful language was written to flatter the King and to put forward his views, a fairly standard aim in the days where 'off with his head' was a common phrase uttered by the monarch who strongly believed in the divine right of kings to rule, they also believed in the 'king's touch' where the king would cure people of scrofula merely by touching them.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know that to be an idiom.  I have never run across that as an explanation, but may search if I have the time.  Or perphaps CanuckMA or Tez3 can comment on that.
> 
> Regardless, it is not my belief.  I have read, and it seems reasonable, that Joesph may have already passed by this time, which was at least 30 years after the birth of Jesus.  They would then simply be referring to His still living mother and not referring to His earthly father who was not around.



Hebrew names are always name ben/bat father's name. The only time an individual is referred as name ben/bat mother is when requesting a prayer for the sick.


----------



## cdunn

Tez3 said:


> Bit confused again, what did Joseph pass?
> 
> Again though even on oftheherd's 'translations' it says G-d of *Israel ie the Jewish people, *the country even if you wish, whatever but it doesn't say G-d of the Gentiles! ours, of Israel, the Jews, us lot. Why do gentiles get to claim ownership and decide what was said? The Covenant was with the Jews not anyone who wandered by and thought 'Ere I'll ave bit of this'. We don't take the the Bhagavad Gita, start translating it and turning it into a different religion so why do people take the 'Old Testament' and claim it's the word of G-d _to them_ when they aren't Jews? sorry but it's something that puzzles me and at times annoys me when things are 'quoted' and used to justify things that that simply shouldn't be justified.



Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the Noachide movement? That is the idea that while Jebus may be bunk, the covenant of the rainbow is still in full effect, for all mankind?


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> Directed at you.
> 
> Simple:
> You assume that your scripture is the one and only, so your deity is the one and only.
> So do those other guys.
> Well, those monothe..... the once with only one guy in the Pantheon anyhow.
> 
> That's why those holy wars are so much fun: each side is just SURE He is on their side....
> 
> My take on the thing?
> We are mere gnats, floating around on a speck of dust in the universe.
> The thought of somebody keeping track of us in comforting, but to assume we hold the answers is ridiculous.



yes, I do consider my scripture to be the only true scripture, and my God to be the only true God.  I would expect those who believe in one or more gods would believe the same.  I accept that they do.  Why would they believe otherwise?

As long as your belief (or anyone else's) is valid to you, you are entitled to it, and responsible for it, as am I.


----------



## CanuckMA

cdunn said:


> Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the Noachide movement? That is the idea that while Jebus may be bunk, the covenant of the rainbow is still in full effect, for all mankind?



The Noahchide Laws are indeed binding to all.


----------



## Langenschwert

Buka said:


> Looking at all the different religions.....
> 
> Do you think everyone is praying to the same entity/God?
> 
> Or, concerning a religion that's different from yours, do you think the people are praying to an empty seat?



To a certain degree, the first one. My religion is an expression of the Indo-European pantheon. When people say that no one worshipped Thor after Christianity triumphed, they're wrong. He just wasn't worshipped _in Europe_. The Hindus never stopped. In Vedic Hinduism, he's called Indra. Then you had Taranis, Zeus, Teshub and Tarhun depending on where you were back in the day.

But things get confusing. For example, taking another look at Thor and Zeus. Both "thunder" deities. However, Zeus is derived from the same root as Tyr, another Norse "sky" god, and once head of the pantheon in Germanic tribes. So is Zeus actually Tyr or Thor? I dunno. And later on, both Odin and Thor were considered heads of the Norse pantheon at different times. Yikes.

And Yahweh was possibly originally part of a pantheon too, and has been linked to Asherah, perhaps as her consort, IIRC. Which explains why Yahwists were so keen on erasing as much of her as possible. Bad press for budding monotheists.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> yes, I do consider my scripture to be the only true scripture, and my God to be the only true God.  I would expect those who believe in one or more gods would believe the same.  I accept that they do.  Why would they believe otherwise?
> 
> As long as your belief (or anyone else's) is valid to you, you are entitled to it, and responsible for it, as am I.




How do you reconcile with the fact that your scripture is a bad translation of a translation of MY scripture?


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I think one problem is that you take the religious book/writings of another religion and use them as your own so what Jews believe in is actually very important and as they are the 'owners' of that intellectual property surely you cannot read into it more than they do? What's said in the 'Old Testament' is addressed to the Jewish people only. I wouldn't seek to change anyone's religion but it constantly amazes me to see non Jews take what was written for _us_ and mangle it, read into it and generally claim it to be theirs to some very odd ends. Blood transfusions are refused, puritan lifestyles espoused, wars over the meaning of bread etc etc. I'll admit it baffles me quite often!



I understand your point of view.  But hopefully you can understand mine.  Christians believe the Old Testament is theirs too.  We believe, based on the New Testatmen, that we have been grafted in, and become adopted sons of God.  I don't expect you to believe that, but we do.  I do agree that different parts of the Bible are often coopted for 'proof' of a religious point.  My belief is that usually that is done by taking a verse out of context.  

You or anyone else if free to disagree.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> To start with your translation is wrong in several places.



What I was hoping was that you could provide examples of that from the Blble.



CanuckMA said:


> Then the selected quotes of both Isaiah completely the metaphor used that places Israel's relationship to G-d as a parent-child relationship.



I'm sorry, I didn't get that about Isaiah.  But I understand and agree that we hae a parent-child relationship.  I hope I didn't say anything above that sounded different.



CanuckMA said:


> And lastly, the Prophets were not forecasting events hundred's of year in the future. Their concerns were a lot more immediae than that.



I would be interested in hearing why you believe that.  I would say there were obviously Jews of Jesus' time who accepted those prophecies as referring to Jesus, and that they were closer to the times of the the prophecies than we are today.  I also understand you won't probably accept that as any proof.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I understand your point of view.  But hopefully you can understand mine.  Christians believe the Old Testament is theirs too.  We believe, based on the New Testatmen, that we have been grafted in, and become adopted sons of God.  I don't expect you to believe that, but we do.  I do agree that different parts of the Bible are often coopted for 'proof' of a religious point.  My belief is that usually that is done by taking a verse out of context.
> 
> You or anyone else if free to disagree.



But you don't use Tanach. You discount 99% of it. Your religion is based on your 'new testament'. If you actually lay claim on Torah, then you have to admit that G-d lies and reneges on promises, because our covenant with G-d through Abraham and renewed at Sinai is for eternity. Not until I change my mind, not until I come up with something better, but for eternity.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> And he believes that the KJV, a politically motivated bad translation of a translation, to be authoritative.



Yes, I do believe the KJV to be authoritative.  Can you tell me how it is politically motivated, a bad translation, and of what bad translation?


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> What I was hoping was that you could provide examples of that from the Blble.



Easiest one is the Commandment does not say "Thou shall not Kill", it says 'No murder". There is a big difference between killing and murder.





> I'm sorry, I didn't get that about Isaiah.  But I understand and agree that we hae a parent-child relationship.  I hope I didn't say anything above that sounded different.



Isaiah's language is used to justify Mary and Jesus. At no time does Isaiah speak of individuals.





> I would be interested in hearing why you believe that.  I would say there were obviously Jews of Jesus' time who accepted those prophecies as referring to Jesus, and that they were closer to the times of the the prophecies than we are today.  I also understand you won't probably accept that as any proof.



The followers of Jesus at the time were following one in a long line of false Messiahs. It is not until long after that text was warped to fit a story.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, I do believe the KJV to be authoritative.  Can you tell me how it is politically motivated, a bad translation, and of what bad translation?



It was politically motivated to please the King.

It is mistranslated in several places. And it was translated from a Greek translation of Hebrew text. I said it before, you want an English translation that is true to the Hebrew, use JPS or ArtScroll. JPS tends to be a bit more gender neutral. Which highlights that even faithfull translations can be different. That is why when we study Torah, we always refer back to the Hebrew text.


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> It was politically motivated to please the King.
> 
> It is mistranslated in several places. And it was translated from a Greek translation of Hebrew text. I said it before, you want an English translation that is true to the Hebrew, use JPS or ArtScroll. JPS tends to be a bit more gender neutral. Which highlights that even faithfull translations can be different. That is why when we study Torah, we always refer back to the Hebrew text.




you forgot Latin in the mix.

And as anybody who speaks (fluently) more than one language can attest: some stuff does not translate well.

Or rather in the true sense of the meaning.
You get close, but no exact matches....


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, I do believe the KJV to be authoritative. Can you tell me how it is politically motivated, a bad translation, and of what bad translation?



As far as the New Testament goes, it's also a bad translation-in part because of history's "telephone game" with it, in part because of the lack of facility of the 47 men chosen to make the translation- their Greek was not that good at all, and it was Homeric, not Alexandrian or _koine_-their various source documents were also bad translations-they did not have all the Received Greek text, and relied on the Vulgate (Latin).

They came up with good literature, and prose, but something really, really inaccurate in places-even in place where the Aramaic had been preserved over the years, they made mistakes that vastly altered what was actually being said-many of these things have led to oppressive doctrine from various churches that might not have been necessary at all (but might have happened anyway, as in the case of homosexuality). 

*Matthew 28:1*, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. 

*I Timothy 6:10* should be, "For the love of money is_ a_ (not* the)* root of all evil . . . ." 

*Acts 12:4* has the *pagan* word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is _pascha (&#928;&#940;&#963;&#967;&#945_which is translated correctly as* Passover* in Matthew 26:2

I could go on like this all day, really. 


1) Was Jesus married? I'll tell you now, in spite of what you might have been taught, the KJV _clearly_ tells you that he was.

2)What is the fourth thing Jesus said from the cross?


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> yes, I do consider my scripture to be the only true scripture, and my God to be the only true God.  I would expect those who believe in one or more gods would believe the same.  I accept that they do.  Why would they believe otherwise?
> 
> As long as your belief (or anyone else's) is valid to you, you are entitled to it, and responsible for it, as am I.




So, as I read your reply, all those folks who do not subscribe to your religious believes are wrong.

Too bad, they tend to think the same about you. 

And again, nothing new here, after over 2000 years of blood shed.


(BTW...to get back to the holidays and saints...you know the old motto: if you can't beat them, join them! What better way to convert than to hijack the holidays and deities. Rumor has it that our Jesus image is hugely influenced by the statue of Zeus from Olympia, one of the 7 wonders of the world)


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> But you don't use Tanach. You discount 99% of it. Your religion is based on your 'new testament'. If you actually lay claim on Torah, then you have to admit that G-d lies and reneges on promises, because our covenant with G-d through Abraham and renewed at Sinai is for eternity. Not until I change my mind, not until I come up with something better, but for eternity.



I'm not aware we discount any of the Old Testament unless something was superseded by the New Testament.  For example, the New Testament releives us of the need for male circumcision and following most of the dietary laws.

But yes, Christians do tend to put more emphasis on the New Testament.  After all, we believe it contains the words of Jesus as well as other inspired words of God.

That you don't believe that is your business, as is it mine that I do believe that.  We each will be held accountable for our beliefs.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not aware we discount any of the Old Testament unless something was superseded by the New Testament. For example, the New Testament releives us of the need for male circumcision and following most of the dietary laws..



Most Christians don't keep the sabbath, the seventh day, holy-they keep Sunday, by papal decree, as the sabbath-a violation of the fifth commandment.... 

*Sun*day-_Sol's_ day. Those tricky Romans.....:lol:


----------



## CanuckMA

granfire said:


> Rumor has it that our Jesus image is hugely influenced by the statue of Zeus from Olympia, one of the 7 wonders of the world



Jesus would have been short, dark skinned with Semetic features.


----------



## Tez3

The language in the KJV is beautiful, it's lyrical and sounds good to the ear but none of that makes it accurate. Many scholars have said that the translation isn't accurate. http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring04/review10.shtml.htm
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-wylde.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/weekinreview/24mcgrath.html?_r=1

The KJV is very important from a language point of view as well as a political one, it has influenced much but the fact remains it was a political translation, probably a wise thing in those days, which were hugely more perilous than now. If you were the 'wrong' faith it cost you your head, England had already had Bloody Mary and then Elizabeth, King James was supposed to unite Scotland and England settling religious as well as political issues. It was wise to publish a Bible that put forward the King's and Parliament's views as being the word of G-d therefore making the people 'settle' down to being peaceful subjects! Ireland had been seeing conflicts between Catholics and Protestants since Henry the Eighths time, so religious warfare and bloodshed was common.
Interestingly King James was an openly 'practising' homosexual which perhaps those who espouse the KJV while abhorring gays may not realise..


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not aware we discount any of the Old Testament unless something was superseded by the New Testament.  For example, the New Testament releives us of the need for male circumcision and following most of the dietary laws.
> 
> But yes, Christians do tend to put more emphasis on the New Testament.  After all, we believe it contains the words of Jesus as well as other inspired words of God.
> 
> That you don't believe that is your business, as is it mine that I do believe that.  We each will be held accountable for our beliefs.



Torah is part of the minuriae of the everlasting covenant between G-d and the Jews. Note the everlasting part. So acording to you, which is it about the covenant, did G-d lie or is it that he just can't keep a contract?


----------



## Tez3

I can't imagine why the 'New Testament' would say you shouldn't follow the Kashrut laws as these are there for purely practical reasons as much as religious ones. Food poisoning from eating the wrong things in hot countries was still just as likely as Jesus' time as before, if he kept kosher I don't see why his followers wouldn't. Judaism is a hugely practical religion and the laws are there for more than just being 'pious' something that actually isn't really encouraged.


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> . Rumor has it that our Jesus image is hugely influenced by the statue of Zeus from Olympia, one of the 7 wonders of the world)



Actually, the popular long-haired white guy image of Jesus can be traced to the Merovingian dynasty of France, who believed-and were believed by some-to be descended from Jesus.

Here's a 6th century Merovingian king:


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I can't imagine why the 'New Testament' would say you shouldn't follow the Kashrut laws as these are there for purely practical reasons as much as religious ones. Food poisoning from eating the wrong things in hot countries was still just as likely as Jesus' time as before, if he kept kosher I don't see why his followers wouldn't. Judaism is a hugely practical religion and the laws are there for more than just being 'pious' something that actually isn't really encouraged.



Acts 10:11-13
11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
[12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

People misinterpret this to mean that _kashrut_ has somehow been suspended, when, the fact is that later in the chapter Peter recognizes it is God telling him to call *no man* unclean.....


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Actually, the popular long-haired white guy image of Jesus can be traced to the Merovingian dynasty of France, who believed-and were believed by some-to be descended from Jesus.
> 
> Here's a 6th century Merovingian king:
> 
> View attachment 16255





I think the Byzantines had that image a lot sooner...after all, the statute had been removed from Olympia and brought to Constantinople IIRC.

But it's certainly a stretch to assume the kid was a tall blond white guy....


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> Jesus would have been short, dark skinned with Semetic features.



Oh the humanity!



Liek, noway, and it was snowing in Bethlehem, too!

Ok, jerk moment over.

Like this?


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> I can't imagine why the 'New Testament' would say you shouldn't follow the Kashrut laws as these are there for purely practical reasons as much as religious ones. Food poisoning from eating the wrong things in hot countries was still just as likely as Jesus' time as before, if he kept kosher I don't see why his followers wouldn't. Judaism is a hugely practical religion and the laws are there for more than just being 'pious' something that actually isn't really encouraged.



LOL, around here, the bible has it's 'pick and choose' moments....


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> I think the Byzantines had that image a lot sooner...after all, the statute had been removed from Olympia and brought to Constantinople IIRC.
> 
> But it's certainly a stretch to assume the kid was a tall blond white guy....



Nah. Here's a Byzantine image of jesus fromthe 6th century:



And here's one from the third century, in Syria-the Healing of the Paralytic.



Oldest known image of Jesus.    Looks a lot like Canuck said......:lol:


----------



## granfire

Oh, come on, I skipped that guy with the creepy eye on purpose! :lol:


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Like this?



Gran, that's an awesome looking icon. Where's it from?


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Gran, that's an awesome looking icon. Where's it from?



http://www.ancientsculpturegallery.com/icons.html

could not find a date on it though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not aware we discount any of the Old Testament unless something was superseded by the New Testament.  For example, the New Testament releives us of the need for male circumcision and following most of the dietary laws.
> 
> But yes, Christians do tend to put more emphasis on the New Testament.  After all, we believe it contains the words of Jesus as well as other inspired words of God.
> 
> That you don't believe that is your business, as is it mine that I do believe that.  We each will be held accountable for our beliefs.



Actually the idea of the New Testament vacating any portion of the old is a fallacy.

There's a thread around here with that in it I believe.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ath-Rape-Slavery-and-Murder-in-it-s-own-words

That thread's a train wreck, but feel free to pop over and roll eyes.   Yes, I hammered it hard there. So, just tossing this in, do with it what you will, I'm going back to napping.  After all, regardless of what's in any book, it's what's in your mind and heart that really matter I think.

==== Quoted from other thread ===



> the new testament overrides and supplants the old testament


Where does the NT say this?
If this is true, why then is the OT included in the book?


But I'll continue.



> Jesus affirmed the Mosaic  Law even to the  keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat.  5:17-19). He blasted  the Pharisees for giving their own ideas  precedence over God's commands:
> 
> 
> "Why  do you also transgress the  commandment of God because of your  tradition? For God commanded,  saying... `He who curses father or  mother, *let him be put to death*.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4
> "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well *you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said*, 'Honor your father and your mother; and '*He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say*..." Mark 7:8-11
> Jesus  reaffirmed the capital statutes  of God's law. Not only the murderer  (Rev. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8-9;  Rom. 13:4), but even the one who curses a  parent must be put to death  (Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9) just as God  commanded. God's commands to  execute the one who strikes or curses a  parent are the death penalty  statutes that liberal Christians are the  most embarrassed over. However,  Christ was not at all embarrassed over  His Fathers commands. Jesus  repeated these commands without caveat or  reservation.





> The Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Testament according to Jesus:
> 
> 
> "*Do not think that I came to destroy the Law*   or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one   tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. *Whoever *therefore* breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be *called* least* in the kingdom of heaven; but *whoever does and teaches them*, he *shall be* called *great*..." Mat. 5:17-19
> And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and *offer the gift that Moses commanded* as a testimony to them." Mat. 8:4
> "The scribes and the  Pharisees  sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to  observe, that  observe and do..." Mat. 23:2-3
> [Jesus said,] "*Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law?*   ... Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses,   but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a  man  receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that *the law of Moses should not be broken*, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" John 7:19-23



===

Jesus did NOT negate/void the Old Testament.

Proof:
_*"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. *  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until  heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part  of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." _ (Matthew 5:17 NAB)3b) 

_*"All scripture is inspired by God* and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  _(2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

_"Know this first of all, that *there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, *for  no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved  by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."_ (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

_&#8220;Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law"_ (John7:19) 

_&#8220;For the law was given by Moses,..." _(John 1:17).9)

_&#8220;...the scripture cannot be broken.&#8221;_ -- John 10:35


Also....also...you want to know a really interesting thing......the whole reason why the NT can not logically negate the OT?
Because, when Jesus is shown saying things about "The Law" he is  referring to the OT because...and this is the great part here....because  when he supposedly said this, THERE WAS NO "NEW" TESTAMENT! 
Because the NT as we know it today wasn't put together until at the earliest a decade or 2 after his crusifiction. 
(ok, that's the individual pieces. The actual NT was assembled from a  vast pile of writings in 1546 at the Council of Trent, 4th session. A  'little bit' removed from the 'sources')



Also, he supported killing kids.
_"Whoever curses father or mother shall die"_  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

===


----------



## cdunn

Problem, though. Jesus is reported as speaking to Jews. Jews are the people of the Covenant of the Ark - the recievers of Mosaic law. The other tribes of humans, not so much. So, the Mosaic code is not set aside for anyone.. but it never applied in the first place, the much simpler Covenant of the Rainbow does. But the gentile christian churches decided they could pick and choose amoung the Mosaic law, in order to lend support to their own decisions, when they decided that the Covenant of God-Human Sacrifice made them God's new chosen people.


----------



## Tez3

'Healing the paralytic', here being paralytic means being as drunk as a skunk lol! As for snow in Bethlehem, it's bloody snowing like mad here! Had to go to martial arts early as there's a raging blizzard going on, last week I was working outside in shirtsleeves, now snow.

As I remember  (iI was reading about Byzantine culture at the time) the guy with the 'creepy' eye is supposed to represent two different things, each eye having a different meaning, can't remember what at the moment though.


----------



## granfire

cdunn said:


> Problem, though. Jesus is reported as speaking to Jews. Jews are the people of the Covenant of the Ark - the recievers of Mosaic law. The other tribes of humans, not so much. So, the Mosaic code is not set aside for anyone.. but it never applied in the first place, the much simpler Covenant of the Rainbow does. But the gentile christian churches decided they could pick and choose amoung the Mosaic law, in order to lend support to their own decisions, when they decided that the Covenant of God-Human Sacrifice made them God's new chosen people.



well, he did not wake up one morning and said 'Let's start a new club' 
He just wanted the old club abide by the rules!



Tez3 said:


> 'Healing the paralytic', here being paralytic means being as drunk as a skunk lol! As for snow in Bethlehem, it's bloody snowing like mad here! Had to go to martial arts early as there's a raging blizzard going on, last week I was working outside in shirtsleeves, now snow.
> 
> As I remember  (iI was reading about Byzantine culture at the time) the guy with the 'creepy' eye is supposed to represent two different things, each eye having a different meaning, can't remember what at the moment though.



Ah, precursor of the Catholic Church, the right eye does not know what the left is doing.....  (Sorry Bill, could not help it! <sheepish grin>)


----------



## Tez3

I was watching a programme on the Arts and Crafts Movement and they featured the most amazing Chapel. Whatever your faith or none this is a place to come and look at. The symbolism is very strange though, not actually sure what really!
http://www.wyrdlight.com/watts/watts.html
http://astoft2.co.uk/surrey/watts.htm


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Liek, noway, and it was snowing in Bethlehem, too!



It snows in Bethlehem, just not that often....

View attachment $Bethlehem-Jlem-Beth.jpg


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> It snows in Bethlehem, just not that often....
> 
> View attachment 16259



:lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> It was politically motivated to please the King.
> 
> It is mistranslated in several places. And it was translated from a Greek translation of Hebrew text. I said it before, you want an English translation that is true to the Hebrew, use JPS or ArtScroll. JPS tends to be a bit more gender neutral. Which highlights that even faithfull translations can be different. That is why when we study Torah, we always refer back to the Hebrew text.



Well sir, that is the first time I have heard that!  I am guessing you are referring to the septuagint or LXX.  That is the Alexandrian stream of Koine Greek.  That was available to the KJV translators, but from what I have read, they rejected its use.  From my reading, the translators were fluent in Greek, Hebrew, or both.  They used Hebrew texts, and works by earlier translators into English.  I don't know what translation may have used the LXX to translate the Old Testament, but the KJV did not.  

I am curious.  Do you consider your Old Testament the inspired and preserved word of God?


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I am curious.  Do you consider your Old Testament the inspired and preserved word of God?




It is the word of G-d, given to Moses at Sinai.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> As far as the New Testament goes, it's also a bad translation-in part because of history's "telephone game" with it, in part because of the lack of facility of the 47 men chosen to make the translation- their Greek was not that good at all, and it was Homeric, not Alexandrian or _koine_-their various source documents were also bad translations-they did not have all the Received Greek text, and relied on the Vulgate (Latin).



I have to wonder.  You say you have no agenda, and only wish to put forth facts.  But you miss the mark so often.  In all the reading I have done, there were 54 men first chosen.  Some did die before the translation was complete.  All were linguists, and adept in at one of the two languages; Greek or Hebrew.  The Greek used was Koine Greek, the Greek of the common man, and despite the fact the Romans were in charge, Koine Greek was the lingua franka when peoples of different nationalities wished to communicate in a common language.  There are two streams of Greek used for translations of the Bible.  The Alexandrian, used by the Catholic Church and most modern translations, and the Textus Receptus (or Received Text) used by the KJV translators and previous translators from Tyndale on.  The KJV translators also used previous translations to compare their work with.



elder999 said:


> They came up with good literature, and prose, but something really, really inaccurate in places-even in place where the Aramaic had been preserved over the years, they made mistakes that vastly altered what was actually being said-many of these things have led to oppressive doctrine from various churches that might not have been necessary at all (but might have happened anyway, as in the case of homosexuality).



Can you show where Aramaic survived to the 1600s?  If there were Aramaic which was considered inspired and preserved, they would have certainly used it.



elder999 said:


> *Matthew 28:1*, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.



There you go again.  The KJV says, in *Matthew 28:1*, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, *cam*e *Mary* *Magdalene* and the other *Mary* to see the sepulchre."  In other words, the sabbath was ended, the time being "... as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week... "  When you say the Bible says something, you really should specify which translation/version you are talking about.  There are many.  I only believe in the KJV.  You can believe in another if you wish.  That is your right.  But to be honest, you need to say which version it is you are referring to.  Not all who say they are Christians agree on the correct version of the Bible.  But I believe in the KJV and will only try to defend it.



elder999 said:


> *I Timothy 6:10* should be, "For the love of money is_ a_ (not* the)* root of all evil . . . ."



I can't really comment of this.  I don't have enough understanding of Greek.  But considering your current track record, I am sure there is a good and reasonable explanation.  My Greek/English interlinear Bible does translate as 'For a root' but I think is has something to do with the use or lack of use of the definite article in Greek.



elder999 said:


> *Acts 12:4* has the *pagan* word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is _pascha (&#928;&#940;&#963;&#967;&#945_which is translated correctly as* Passover* in Matthew 26:2



I could go on like this all day, really. 




elder999 said:


> 1) Was Jesus married? I'll tell you now, in spite of what you might have been taught, the KJV _clearly_ tells you that he was.
> 
> 2)What is the fourth thing Jesus said from the cross?



Well, I can hardly wait, so please tell us (and from the KJV) and how it means that Jesus was married?


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> It is the word of G-d, given to Moses at Sinai.



You probably didn't mean it that way, but it seems you were evading.  So it is the inspired and preserved word of God?


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Most Christians don't keep the sabbath, the seventh day, holy-they keep Sunday, by papal decree, as the sabbath-a violation of the fifth commandment....
> 
> *Sun*day-_Sol's_ day. Those tricky Romans.....:lol:



Worship is reported in the New Testament as being on the first day of the week.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> The language in the KJV is beautiful, it's lyrical and sounds good to the ear but none of that makes it accurate. Many scholars have said that the translation isn't accurate. http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring04/review10.shtml.htm
> http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-wylde.htm
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/weekinreview/24mcgrath.html?_r=1



I believe that God made the KJV accurate.  And many scholars have said it is accurate.  You believe the ones you want to believe and I will believe the ones I want to believe.



Tez3 said:


> The KJV is very important from a language point of view as well as a political one, it has influenced much but the fact remains it was a political translation, probably a wise thing in those days, which were hugely more perilous than now. If you were the 'wrong' faith it cost you your head, England had already had Bloody Mary and then Elizabeth, King James was supposed to unite Scotland and England settling religious as well as political issues. It was wise to publish a Bible that put forward the King's and Parliament's views as being the word of G-d therefore making the people 'settle' down to being peaceful subjects! Ireland had been seeing conflicts between Catholics and Protestants since Henry the Eighths time, so religious warfare and bloodshed was common.



David W. Daniels, in his book Answers To Your Bible Version Questions, relates the Puritans petitioned King James to hear their complaints against the Church of England.  John Rainolds petitioned for a new translation and King James consented, against the protests of the also present Bishop Bancroft of London.




Tez3 said:


> Interestingly King James was an openly 'practising' homosexual which perhaps those who espouse the KJV while abhorring gays may not realise..



Another controversial claim that some think was begun long after his death by some who wished to discredit King James and return to other religious beliefs.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> Torah is part of the minuriae of the everlasting covenant between G-d and the Jews. Note the everlasting part. So acording to you, which is it about the covenant, did G-d lie or is it that he just can't keep a contract?



I believe he can do whatever he wants.  I don't believe he lies.  The Bible says he does not.  But I think he can change his mind.  Did he not repent of some punishments against the Jews?


----------



## Josh Oakley

oftheherd1 said:


> Worship is reported in the New Testament as being on the first day of the week.



Where? I rusty on my biblical scholarship.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Acts 10:11-13
> 11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
> [12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
> [13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 
> People misinterpret this to mean that _kashrut_ has somehow been suspended, when, the fact is that later in the chapter Peter recognizes it is God telling him to call *no man* unclean.....



In Galatians 2, you can read:  [SUP]"11[/SUP]But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  [SUP]12[/SUP]For  before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but  when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them  which were of the circumcision. 

 [SUP]13[/SUP]And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 

 [SUP]14[/SUP]But  when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the  gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest  after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest  thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" so apparently Peter felt he was relieved of the burden of the law for some time after his encounter with Cornelius which was preceded by the vision you mention.


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> LOL, around here, the bible has it's 'pick and choose' moments....



I can agree with that.  But it cuts both ways.


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> Where? I rusty on my biblical scholarship.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Ask your Boss!


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> I have to wonder. You say you have no agenda, and only wish to put forth facts. But you miss the mark so often. In all the reading I have done, there were 54 men first chosen. Some did die before the translation was complete.



"All the reading you have done" simply isn't enough:54 men _were_ chosen, only 47 participated in the translation. They were organized into three groups at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge. Each group was divided into subgroups, and those subgroups were assigned chapters of the Bible. They were charged from the onset under certain rules, the first of which hampered them:



> 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.



This is, of course, the english translation of 1568, followed by the Church of England, and revised in 1577.

It *sucks*.





oftheherd1 said:


> All were linguists, and adept in at one of the two languages; Greek or Hebrew.



Their Greek was apparently okay-and only okay-they also relied upon the Vulgate for numerous passages. Where they weren't satisfied with what the Bishop's bible said, they had a pre-approved list of English translations to consult, including Tyndale. The product of 1611 was also revised in 1760 and 1769-the Bible you know as the KJV was revised by one man, Benjamin Blaney, who mistakenly assumed that the committees had used the 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than a later one, and made something like 20,000 changes to that book that you believe those committees were blessed and moved by God to tranlsate.



oftheherd1 said:


> Can you show where Aramaic survived to the 1600s? If there were Aramaic which was considered inspired and preserved, they would have certainly used it.



I asked you about it:



> *Matthew 27:46*
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> [SUP]46[/SUP]And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, _Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani_? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?



OF course, the phrase that was supposed to be uttered in Aramaic, is transliterated in Greek, phonetically.



oftheherd1 said:


> There you go again. The KJV says, in *Matthew 28:1*, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, *cam*e *Mary* *Magdalene* and the other *Mary* to see the sepulchre." In other words, the sabbath was ended, the time being "... as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week... " When you say the Bible says something, you really should specify which translation/version you are talking about. There are many. I only believe in the KJV. You can believe in another if you wish. That is your right. But to be honest, you need to say which version it is you are referring to. Not all who say they are Christians agree on the correct version of the Bible. But I believe in the KJV and will only try to defend it.



Here ya go:



> *Matthew 28:1*
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> *Matthew 28*
> 
> [SUP]1[/SUP]In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.



The end of the sabbath is sunset on Saturday, not sunrise on Sunday, when they went to see.......




oftheherd1 said:


> I can't really comment of this. I don't have enough understanding of Greek. But considering your current track record, I am sure there is a good and reasonable explanation. My Greek/English interlinear Bible does translate as 'For a root' but I think is has something to do with the use or lack of use of the definite article in Greek.



I took Homeric Greek, Latin and Hebrew in high school-I'm the victim of a classical education. :lol: At one time, my father thought my facility for languages would make me a good minister........ I took koine Greek and Aramaic in college, virtually at the same time as high school-really, I got my degree at the end of the summer after I graduated from HS.

I'm not showing off-I'm telling you that I don't _need_ a Grfeek/English inrilinear Bible, or even a Greek/English dictionary. Greek has definite articles-we used some in reference to "tekton,"-and it's _*"a* root"_, which subtly changes the meaning....



I _really_* could* go on like this all day,_ really. _



oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I can hardly wait, so please tell us (and from the KJV) and how it means that Jesus was married?



*Matthew 23:8*
But be not ye called *Rabbi*: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren

*John 1:38*
Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, *Rabbi*, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

*John 1:49*
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, *Rabbi*, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

*John 3:2*
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, *Rabbi*, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

*John 6:25
*And when they had found him on the other side of the sea*, *they said unto him, *Rabbi, *when camest thou hither?

And maybe I'd leave it to Canuck, but "Rabbi" is a title that doesn't merely mean "teacher," it's applied to _married men,_ and Christ, as depicted in the Gospels, was indeed a _rabbi_-how else would he come to teach in a temple?

*Matthew 13:54*

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]54[/SUP]And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

Jesus was married.


----------



## Josh Oakley

granfire said:


> Ask your Boss!



Nah. Offtheherd1 is right there. He will probably get back to me quicker than the chaplain.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Can you show where Aramaic survived to the 1600s?  If there were Aramaic which was considered inspired and preserved, they would have certainly used it.



There are a couple of men in my congregation who can read Aramaic.  We can all 'speak' it because a number of our prayers are in Aramaic


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> Nah. Offtheherd1 is right there. He will probably get back to me quicker than the chaplain.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Just call the Essex... yiddish word for bed bug....


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> You probably didn't mean it that way, but it seems you were evading.  So it is the inspired and preserved word of God?



G-d dictated Torah to Moses at Sinai. He also gave him the Oral Torah, that was eventually written down as the Mishna.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I believe that God made the KJV accurate.  And many scholars have said it is accurate.  You believe the ones you want to believe and I will believe the ones I want to believe.



KJV  Exodus 20-13  Thou shalt not kill.

JPS 1917 edition Exodus 20-12 Thou shalt not murder.


Huge difference. And The JPS is the accurate translation of the Hebrew. So right there it's not accurate.


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> And maybe I'd leave it to Canuck, but "Rabbi" is a title that doesn't merely mean "teacher," it's applied to _married men,_ and Christ, as depicted in the Gospels, was indeed a _rabbi_-how else would he come to teach in a temple?



I hate to contradict you, but Rabbi is applied to any one who has recieved smicha. They are usually married, but it is not a requirement.


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> There are a couple of men in my congregation who can read Aramaic. We can all 'speak' it because a number of our prayers are in Aramaic



Aramaic is the liturgical language of several Eastern Christian churches, in the form of Syriac.


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> I hate to contradict you, but Rabbi is applied to any one who has recieved smicha. They are usually married, but it is not a requirement.



BY all means, contradict me-was Rabbi applied to unmarried men prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.?


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> KJV  Exodus 20-13  Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> JPS 1917 edition Exodus 20-12 Thou shalt not murder.
> 
> 
> Huge difference. And The JPS is the accurate translation of the Hebrew. So right there it's not accurate.



This is not unique to English either.  In Spanish, the verb *matar *means to kill or wound.The word *matador *means killer (not bullfighter).  The word for bull is toro, and the suffix -ador tyically means "one who does".  A bullfighter is a _toreador_, and cannot be called a _matador _until s/he succeeds in actually killing a bull.  

The verb *asesinar *means to murder, and is of the same Arabic root as our verb "to assassinate".   Murder (noun) is *asesinato*

In many versions of the Spanish bible, including the RVA, Éxodo 20:13 reads:
*No matarás
*Do not kill.

Whereas in others such as the NVT,  Éxodo 20:13 reads:
*No cometer**ás** asesinato
*Do not commit murder.  

Here is a Nazarene discussion in Spanish of what the Hebrew text actually means.  It was written by a fellow in Puerto Rico -- should Babelfish easily to English if anyone wants to read a translation.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...qIl_2-&sig=AHIEtbRhLE9nY9IWLvDUubymRJD5iUc2lw

The bulk of the article talks about what has already been discussed, although the last line is worth translating given that martial arts brought us all together here:

*Definitivamente, el matar en defensa propia y en la guerra no cae bajo la prohibición del mandamiento que lo que en realidad dice es &#8220;No cometerás asesinato&#8221;.*

Definitely, killing in self-defense and in war do not fall under the prohibition of the commandment that actually says "Do not commit murder".


----------



## Zenjael

I am a Buddhist. I am also an atheist, and I do not believe in the super natural. I am also an existentialist, secular humanist.


----------



## cdunn

elder999 said:


> BY all means, contradict me-was Rabbi applied to unmarried men prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.?



Human knowledge transmission being what it is, I would cautiously extend that right up to whatever edition you were using; have you ever heard of the Cotton Patch bible?



			
				Matt 2:13-15 said:
			
		

> After they had checked out, the Lord's messenger made connection with Joseph in a dream and said, "Get moving and take your wife and baby and highball it to Mexico. Then stay put until I get word to you because Herod is going to do his best to kill the baby." So he got right up, took the baby and its mother and checked out by night for Mexico. He stayed there until the death of Herod. (This gave meaning to what the Lord said through the prophet: "I summoned my son from Mexico.")





			
				John 1:49 said:
			
		

> "Reverend," answered Nat, "you are Gods Man; you are the nations Leader!"


----------



## Tez3

Contemporary reports have long been known of King James' homosexuality, it's the modern Christians who are disputing this I'm afraid. He was actually buried with one of his lovers, Villiers. James wrote long erotic letters, which still survive, to his male lovers. 


Thinking about it, it would surprise me if Jesus hadn't been married.


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> BY all means, contradict me-was Rabbi applied to unmarried men prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.?



It is unclear if the term was used at all. Up until the destruction of the Second Temple, the monarchy and the Priestly system still ruled. The Rabbinic system started to evolve during the exile, but Rabbis per say did not truly emerge until agter the destruction of the Second Temple.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jesus is always portrayed with a beard.

Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.

Was that true or was the person full of crap?


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> Jesus is always portrayed with a beard.
> 
> Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.
> 
> Was that true or was the person full of crap?



considering that most pictures are the product of later times....I don't think jewish custom plays much into it.

It's been a while since I have thumbed through my history books, but I do believe beards are more of a sign of manhood than marriage (though one can probably argue that both go hand in hand, especially in the olden days.)

The beard certainly has significance in the iconography. slap me upside the head, I can't pull the remnants of info from my caffeine deprived brain...adulthood, status of a free man or something like that.


----------



## CanuckMA

Bob Hubbard said:


> Jesus is always portrayed with a beard.
> 
> Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.
> 
> Was that true or was the person full of crap?



Full of crap.

We are commanded to not "cut the corners of our head". It is generally interpreted as not shaving. Certainly not close to the skin with a blade. There are electric shavers that act more like scisors than blade that are acceptable. In Jesus' time, a beard would have been standard.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> Full of crap.
> 
> We are commanded to not "cut the corners of our head". It is generally interpreted as not shaving. Certainly not close to the skin with a blade. There are electric shavers that act more like scisors than blade that are acceptable. In Jesus' time, a beard would have been standard.



Was there not a vow where the head had to be shaven? How was that accounted for, as I must guess it was. What brought it to my mind, was in the New Testament, Paul is encouraged to join four men who had a vow, and "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."  EDIT: To explain, Paul had long since told gentiles that they didn't have to keep the law, especially concerning circumcism and dietary things.  The apostle James, and elders wanted to show those Christian Jews who insisted on keeping the law, that at least Paul did so as well.


Let me say again how much I appreciate the patience of you and Tez3 in explaining things. It isn't something that we non-Jews often get a chance to ask a Jew about.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Was there not a vow where the head had to be shaven? How was that accounted for, as I must guess it was. What brought it to my mind, was in the New Testament, Paul is encouraged to join four men who had a vow, and "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." EDIT: To explain, Paul had long since told gentiles that they didn't have to keep the law, especially concerning circumcism and dietary things. The apostle James, and elders wanted to show those Christian Jews who insisted on keeping the law, that at least Paul did so as well.
> 
> 
> Let me say again how much I appreciate the patience of you and Tez3 in explaining things. It isn't something that we non-Jews often get a chance to ask a Jew about.



It's not often a discussion as good as this between faiths and those of no faiths happens! Much thanks to everyone!


Would non shaving be more comfortable and practicable? I have to say I am not a fan of beards nor any other facial hair to be honest!


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Was there not a vow where the head had to be shaven? How was that accounted for, as I must guess it was. What brought it to my mind, was in the New Testament, Paul is encouraged to join four men who had a vow, and "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."  EDIT: To explain, Paul had long since told gentiles that they didn't have to keep the law, especially concerning circumcism and dietary things.  The apostle James, and elders wanted to show those Christian Jews who insisted on keeping the law, that at least Paul did so as well.
> 
> 
> Let me say again how much I appreciate the patience of you and Tez3 in explaining things. It isn't something that we non-Jews often get a chance to ask a Jew about.




No. The closest to a vow regarding hair was the Nazir, which involved not cutting your hair at all. Samson is the famous example. 

When we groom, we just don't use a blade. It's also where the sidelocks come from.  Comes from Leveticus 19-27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> It's not often a discussion as good as this between faiths and those of no faiths happens! Much thanks to everyone!
> 
> 
> Would non shaving be more comfortable and practicable? I have to say I am not a fan of beards nor any other facial hair to be honest!



Not shaving is certainly much easier. I put a trimmer through my beard once every couple of weeks.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Another controversial claim that some think was begun long after his death by some who wished to discredit King James and return to other religious beliefs.



Sexuality is complicated.

King James I fathered eight children, and wrote pretty severely against sodomy.

On the other hand, he had several close friendships with men that aroused more than a little ire among his contemporaries: He lived in near-exile as the young king of Scotland, and his first long-term relationship was with Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox-James was later forced to banish him. He had an affair with a woman named Anne Murray, and one with a man named Robert Carr, and George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. 

You can read a pretty straightforward wiki article on the relationships of King James, here.

Interestingly, it's all pretty well supported by articles, letters and poems of the time, and James' own letters and public statements. The restoration of his home, Agelthorpe Hall, in 2008, revealed a previously unknown secret passage between his bedchamber and that of the Duke of Buckingham.


It was pretty commonly known at the time: when James' carriage passed through London, crowds would call out _*"Queen* James!_"

Does all that really mean anything, in terms of the version of the Bible that bears his name? Not at all.


----------



## Tez3

As Christians know tomorrow is Maundy Thursday, here that means the Queen handing out the Maundy Monday, this year she's at York Minster just down the road from me. Obviously I shan't be going ( however working for the Crown I get a half day off or if working double time) but this ceremony should interest history buffs as well because it's been going since the 15th century. King James, he of the translation, would have done this and washed the recipients feet as well.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/RoyalMaundyService/Maundyservice.aspx


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> As Christians know tomorrow is Maundy Thursday, here that means the Queen handing out the Maundy Monday, this year she's at York Minster just down the road from me. Obviously I shan't be going ( however working for the Crown I get a half day off or if working double time) but this ceremony should interest history buffs as well because it's been going since the 15th century. King James, he of the translation, would have done this and washed the recipients feet as well.
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/RoyalMaundyService/Maundyservice.aspx



I didn't realize that tradition was still standing!  Thanks for sharing that....I find it very interesting


----------



## Tez3

Carol said:


> I didn't realize that tradition was still standing! Thanks for sharing that....*I find it very interesting*



I do as well, not from a religious point of view but from historically. I know Canuck wouldn't visit Christain places of worship nor would I if they were just churches etc but I love visiting our cathedrals, minsters and the very old Saxon churches here. The architecture of the cathedrals and minsters is astounding and considering they were built as far back as the 11th century CE without machinery, it's amazing to wonder how they built these huge buildings. The oldest church here is 7th century CE. The oldest synagogue here is 18th century and is beautiful. You can visit it as they do tours, it's well worth seeing if you can ever make it. http://www.bevismarks.org.uk/
All of these are considered national treasures, they are hugely historically important. The religious aspect doesn't have to stop people from admiring the buildings.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> I do as well, not from a religious point of view but from historically. I know Canuck wouldn't visit Christain places of worship nor would I if they were just churches etc but I love visiting our cathedrals, minsters and the very old Saxon churches here. The architecture of the cathedrals and minsters is astounding and considering they were built as far back as the 11th century CE without machinery, it's amazing to wonder how they built these huge buildings. The oldest church here is 7th century CE. The oldest synagogue here is 18th century and is beautiful. You can visit it as they do tours, it's well worth seeing if you can ever make it. http://www.bevismarks.org.uk/
> All of these are considered national treasures, they are hugely historically important. The religious aspect doesn't have to stop people from admiring the buildings.




Actually, I would. On the spectrum, I'd define myself as Modern Orthodox. I would never attend a religious service, or enter any ordinary place of worship, but places of historical or artistic significance I would, and have, go into.


----------



## elder999

CanuckMA said:


> It is unclear if the term was used at all. Up until the destruction of the Second Temple, the monarchy and the Priestly system still ruled. The Rabbinic system started to evolve during the exile, but Rabbis per say did not truly emerge until agter the destruction of the Second Temple.



ANd yet the Gospels all use the term towards Jesus-though it's likely that, in it's connotation of "master."

Of course, none of the Gospels was_ written _until the period of the  destruction of the Second Temple, at the earliest, and more likely somehwat later. "Traditional Christian scholarship" tries to put them all earlier, like around 50 A.D., but there is no evidence to support this-heck, the  entire Gospels we have date from the 4th century, and we only have fragments from before that, so they are variously dated-_conservatilvely_-between 65-68 A.D. and 80-110 A.D., depending upon which part of which Gospel you're talking about, and what "authority" you're talking to.

In any case, a more than sufficient case has been made for the inherent errors and mistranslations in the KJV-some of them of no small consequence. 

In the end, does it really make any difference in a matter of _faith_? Not at all.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Bob Hubbard said:


> Jesus is always portrayed with a beard.
> 
> Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.
> 
> Was that true or was the person full of crap?



He was full of chap, and in any event, the earliest pictures of him don't have him with a beard... Actually, a lot of them don't.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

CanuckMA said:


> Actually, I would. On the spectrum, I'd define myself as Modern Orthodox. I would never attend a religious service, or enter any ordinary place of worship, but places of historical or artistic significance I would, and have, go into.



My mom is reform so when she was if Israel she did see the chit h of the holy sepulchre... But somewhat secretly, and made herself look like an American tourist. Even wore jeans!


(My stepdad is Chabad-Lubavich... Hence the secrecy)

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## CanuckMA

Josh Oakley said:


> My mom is reform so when she was if Israel she did see the chit h of the holy sepulchre... But somewhat secretly, and made herself look like an American tourist. Even wore jeans!
> 
> 
> (My stepdad is Chabad-Lubavich... Hence the secrecy)
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Reform and Chabad, must make for interesting times around the dinner table.


----------



## Josh Oakley

CanuckMA said:


> Reform and Chabad, must make for interesting times around the dinner table.



Especially with all that that vodka! 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Sadly I have been to services, four military funerals in three years and a few before that over the years. Not to go to the funerals of people I knew well who died in Afghan wouldn't have been right somehow, military funerals here are more of a symbol perhaps than a religious service, they were all Church of England which is very good at not being religious, Englishmen finding it somehow not the thing to be 'nosily' religious. The services were very quiet and dignified, people attended regardless of of their faith or whether they had one. Religious leaders here including the Chief Rabbi agree that attending military funerals like this is the right thing to do regardless of where they are held. Desparately sad though all of them, so many young lives gone. It's that I think that pervades the services along with pride in the fallen, perhaps it's an English thing, that there's still the 'stiff upper lip', there's little 'religion' in the services tbh. The quiet dignity of the families in their grief puts the politicians to shame.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Sadly I have been to services, four military funerals in three years and a few before that over the years. Not to go to the funerals of people I knew well who died in Afghan wouldn't have been right somehow, military funerals here are more of a symbol perhaps than a religious service, they were all Church of England which is very good at not being religious,.




In 1980, I returned to university to study engineering, at SUNY @ Stonybrook, which had an excellent religious studies department-so I took religious studies classes for my humanities requirements. I'll never forget Dr. Park walking in, asking "_what is religion_?" and writing this on the blackboard (yes, they still had them then!! :lol: ):
*
Life/Death
*After circling it, underneath he wrote, _What does this mean?_


It's only right and proper that you attend the funerals (and weddings, and, sometimes, baptisms or _bris_) of those of other faiths-but especially, funerals.

Death. It's what we've all got in common, after all.......


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Sadly I have been to services, four military funerals in three years and a few before that over the years. Not to go to the funerals of people I knew well who died in Afghan wouldn't have been right somehow, military funerals here are more of a symbol perhaps than a religious service, they were all Church of England which is very good at not being religious, Englishmen finding it somehow not the thing to be 'nosily' religious. The services were very quiet and dignified, people attended regardless of of their faith or whether they had one. Religious leaders here including the Chief Rabbi agree that attending military funerals like this is the right thing to do regardless of where they are held. Desparately sad though all of them, so many young lives gone. It's that I think that pervades the services along with pride in the fallen, perhaps it's an English thing, that there's still the 'stiff upper lip', there's little 'religion' in the services tbh. The quiet dignity of the families in their grief puts the politicians to shame.



Glad you not only have no problem with attending the funerals, but feel duty bound to do so.  Good attendance at a funeral will almost always help the greiving famliy. For others it does indeed show pride in the fallen.  Nobody wants to die, but knowing you (and more importantly your family) will be shown that respect, will give comfort to those who know they must go in harm's way.


----------



## elder999

.never mind.


----------



## Carol

I'm doomed!!! :wah: :wah:


----------



## elder999

Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk at the Abbey of Gesthemani,near Louisville, Kentucky. He was a  Christian mystic, and author of 72 books-including his best-selling biography, _The Seven Story Mountain_, listed as one of the 100 most important works of nonfiction in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century by the _National Review_. He was also a pioneering proponent of interfaith dialogue, who communicated regularly with the Dalai Lama,D.T. Suzuki, and Thich Nhat Than. He explored Zen Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and Sufism. Toward the end of 1960 he began a correspondence with Abdul Aziz, a Muslim (Sufi) civil servant in Karachi, Pakistan. Until Merton&#8217;s death in 1968, the two men exchanged books and letters in which they discussed their theological differences, introduced each other to their respective traditions of spirituality, asked each other questions about their daily practices of prayer and meditation, and described to each other how they ordered their days. One of the most detailed, pesronal accounts of Merton&#8217;s daily life in his hermitage at the Abbey of Gesthemani is recorded in a letter to Aziz.Merton and Aziz were deeply curious about and appreciative of each other&#8217;s religious traditions. Merton wrote to Aziz about being stirred to the depths of his heart by the spirit of adoration and holy awe in Islam. Aziz read avidly all the books on Christian mysticism that Merton sent to him.

*Neither* tried to convince the other to move from appreciation to conversion. Aziz once sent Merton a translation of the Koran, and suggested he add  the chanting of the Koran to his daily prayers. Merton declined, explaining that his work was to chant the holy books of his own tradition, and, besides, he didn&#8217;t want to chant the Koran incorrectly. _"But,"_ he wrote,_ "I read the Koran with deep attention and reverence."_

 The deep attention and reverence that Merton and Aziz brought to each other&#8217;s books, traditions and lives undergirded their friendship, and the frank and unembarrassed way they explored their similarities and differences enlivened it: the two friends prayed for one another regularly and often asked for each other&#8217;s prayers. Aziz prayed for Merton on the Night of Power, when the revelation of the Koran to Muhammad is celebrated. Merton prayed for Aziz on Pentecost. As both were early risers, they often prayed for each other at dawn.

_"It is important,"_ Merton wrote,_"*to try to understand the beliefs of other religions*, but much more important is the shattering of the experience of divine light&#8230;.It is here that the area of fruitful dialogue exists between Christianity and Islam."_ This conviction was the foundation for Merton&#8217;s many interfaith friendships. Even when the two friends reached theological impasses, they remained connected to one another through their common desire to search for and find the living God. _"*We live in dreadful* *times*,_" Merton wrote to Aziz in* 1961*,_ and we must be brothers in prayer and worship no matter what may be the doctrinal differences that separate our minds."_


_*We* live in dreadful times._


----------



## granfire

Carol said:


> I'm doomed!!! :wah: :wah:
> 
> View attachment 16270





OH NOEZ!!!11!!!1!!eleven!!!


----------



## elder999

> *Matthew 27:46
> 
> *King James Version (KJV)
> 
> [SUP]46[/SUP]And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, _Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani_? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?



So, it's Easter. 

On Good Friday, when Christians commemorate Jesus's crucifixion, priests, and deacons, and pastors and ministers all around the world read this verse as part of the Gospel reading for the day. The phrase, _My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me_ is an echo of the 22nd psalm, so a lot of people are really satisfied with those parallels,and there are a lot of convoluted explanations for what Jesus is saying here-that He couldn't go to Hell with God's grace upon him, and so God removed it being just one of them, but what if-and I'm just saying, _if_, that phrase, transliterated into Greek from Aramaic (and, judging from what's left in most fragments, an odd combination of Hebrew, Chaldean-Aramaic and Syriac-Aramaic, but mostly Aramaic) was translated and transliterated incorrectly? The Kaboris Codex-the oldest extant entire collection of Gospels written in Aramaic, circa 1100, reads thusly:



> _*Matthew 27: 46*. And about the ninth hour, Y&#8217;shua cried out with a loud voice and said: *My El! My El! Lemana shabakthani*: *Why have you spared me*? _



Which could be Jesus kind of saying, _Hey, Daddy, I'm up here on this cross, can we end this now?_ Since he expired shortly afterward, this is possible. As an aside, lest anyone think I'm being flip by typing "Daddy," in most of the NT, when Jesus prays, he uses the familiar equivalent of _abba_ to address God, so he really is (kind of) calling Him "Daddy."

But it could be something else altogether-a syntax issue, and Jesus is actually saying something along the lines of, _My God, my God, *For this I was forsworn*_-_for *this* I was spared_, and what is commonly interpreted as a whimper of agony becomes almost a cry of triumph. 

Just a thought.

Happy Easter, to those of you who celebrate it-_He is risen!_

And_ Chag Sameach Pesach!, _to you, Canuck and Tez-and anyone else who celebrated Passover.

and everyone else? ......_have a *nice* day!_ :lol:


----------



## Carol

Speaking of abba meaning father...

16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

16habebat autem tunc vinctum insignem qui dicebatur Barabbas 
17congregatis ergo illis dixit Pilatus quem vultis dimittam vobis Barabban an Iesum qui dicitur Christus


The notable prisoner's first name was Jesus, bar- means "son of", Abbas means "Father"
Pilate would then be saying, whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus son of the Father? Or Jesus which is called Christ? 

18For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

18sciebat enim quod per invidiam tradidissent eum
19sedente autem illo pro tribunali misit ad illum uxor eius dicens nihil tibi et iusto illi multa enim passa sum hodie per visum propter eum

Him.  Singular.  Just man.  Singular.  Pilate gives the crowd a choice between Jesus Son of the Father, or Jesus who is called Christ, and knew with envy the crowd had turned *him* over.  And that his wife pleaded with him to have nothing to do with *that just man *yet two prisoners are on deck.

20princeps autem sacerdotum et seniores persuaserunt populis ut peterent Barabban Iesum vero perderent
20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

 bar-Abban  -- son of the Master.

So Jesus son of the Father, Jesus the Christ, Jesus son of the Master ...


----------



## Carol

If there was no Barabbas as a separate person, there would have been no instance where the angry mob gathered for the vote. No instances where the story is repeated ad infinitum every time the high holidays occur. And no clinging to the notion that the Jews killed Jesus. The verse sited at Matthew 27:18 shows the Latin verb tradar -- to give up, to hand over. Jesus was given up, handed over to the Jews calling for his punishment.

Yet the oft-touted John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam

The verb used is dar (to give) not tradar (to give up). God gave his son. God did not give up his son....he got his son back 3 days later. The Nicene creed says for our sake he was crucified. And in accordance with the scriptures he rose again 3 days later. It was all planned.

And, the practice of an angry mob choosing which prisoner goes to his fate does not appear to be consistent of Jewish practices of the time.

This is not a story relegated to a footnote.  This is something repeated every high holiday.


----------



## khuang85

I identify myself as a Christian but also like to incorporate aspects of other true religions into my faith. I believe Scientology, the Mormans, and Jehovah's Witness religions are cults and do not believe in what they say. I'd share if appropriate but will NEVER try and shove it down another person's throat. I think it is not our place to do such a thing.


----------



## Ken Morgan

khuang85 said:


> I identify myself as a Christian but also like to incorporate aspects of other true religions into my faith. I believe Scientology, the Mormans, and Jehovah's Witness religions are cults and do not believe in what they say. I'd share if appropriate but will NEVER try and shove it down another person's throat. I think it is not our place to do such a thing.




Todays&#8217; main stream religions are just cults from the past that have become very successful.


----------



## Blade96

I'm agnostic.


----------

