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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

That was good. Thanks.

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

 

[Jenna]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .