Seasons

As far as I know, my own religion has nothing to say about what kinds of conversations I have as long as I don't speak ill of others or invoke God mockingly. My personal preference (i.e. my own philosophy) is that talking about "disputed" things is not only fun but also instructive. But I should clarify that I don't think we've been having a conversation about whose religion is "right" or anything of the sort -- though there was some discussion I clearly can't enter since it premises certain things that only Christians believe... and I've certainly no wish to argue the definition of tenets of faith in a religion I don't share.

Been away for a few days, catching up:

Eugene wrote:
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?

Well, as to your first point, I could reject the Jewish religion or determine to fail to observe every commandment, but by virtue of being born Jewish I am necessarily bound by these commandments nonetheless and will be till I die, whatever else I may believe. It was in that sense that I meant I would always be a Jew, not race only. I think my point was that religion does not compete in a free market of ideas. If it did, we should all be born religion-less and free to choose or not as we mature and at any time.

As for your second point, Judaism may well accept converts (my own mother is one, in fact), albeit rarely, but the fact that one can enter something one wasn't born into does not also mean that one can leave it!

I was surprised and confused to hear you say modern Judaism doesn't have a system of doctrine. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by doctrine.

As to your last point, the Sh'ma is, I think, a good rallying call, but failure to say it or agree on what it means does not have the power to render one Jewish or not. More to your point (and to Pi's in a moment), why should God, whether One, whether that of Israel, or otherwise, be necessarily supernatural?

To be continued...

Mr. Crab,

You are right about us discussing in-house Christian issues; this is probably not the best place to go too in-depth on such things, although they always come up when there is more than one Christian on a board that touches on controversial topics.

Despite taking an entire semester of Jewish Thought and Culture, it still feels like I know nothing. Do you believe there is a difference between being a Jew by birth and being a Jew by religion? If so, what is the relationship between the two?

Concerning the doctrine issue, what I meant is that there is not an official body of doctrine that one must believe in to be a Jew. But I'm still having trouble picturing the idea of a non-supernatural God.

And now for the rest:

Pi wrote:
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)

I guess I have to answer that with a question: what do you mean when you say "natural"?

To me, the natural is anything that can be explained (as opposed to taken solely on faith). I understand explanation as following from a process of theory and inquiry, the scientific method.

It is my thinking that when people refer to something supernatural, they mean something which in and of itself necessarily defies explanation. Personally, I don't believe such things exist except as ideas. To my thinking, other "modes" of existence than the one we exist in (such as you posit) are no different that, say ultraviolet light. In other words, we may not know about them now, even if we experience their effects, but they are still part of the universe and subject to discovery.

Consider ghosts, if they exist (or if something exists that some people take to be ghosts, whatever they mean by that word). Suppose I see a ghost. There are a number of possibilities. It could be a generation of my mind. It could be something else acting on my mind, causing me to see it. It could be a thing unrelated to my mind, located exactly where I see it -- if so, it could be measured or apprehended in some way, we should be able to ultimately discover what it's made of and how it came to be there. Any of these possibilities would be sufficient, if demonstrated, to persuade me that ghosts exist consistent with the observations made. If, however, you were to insist to me that ghosts exist but that I will never see one or be affected by one in any measurable way, or that despite our best efforts now or in the future we shall never learn anything scientific about them, then I would call such a ghost supernatural and, unless I was inspired to take its existence on faith, not believe there is such a thing except as a fiction of your mind. Of course, if I *was* inspired to take it on faith, I'd do so with no expectation that any other sane person would also.

Beings such as angels, incidentally, are automatically suspect to me because they would seem to massively multiply entities massively needlessly.

I should qualify these statements by noting the Professor would probably point out that there is also "inward knowing", and I'm all for inwardly percieving and knowing angels or other constructs, as long as we don't confuse this with being the same as, for lack of a better phrase, "outward" knowing.

Okay, now I'm starting to understand. We have somewhat different understandings of "supernatural". I don't mean "unexplainable" as such. I mean beyond or above natural. By natural I mean things that are of this worlds-realm, composed of matter and energy and so on. Angels, for instance, are spirit.

I just want to point out the fact too that you're only going to care what it says in Romans if you call yourself a Christian. I can discuss pretty much anything I want without worry of it being a sin. I can also invoke God mockingly, because my beliefs dictate that it's OK to do so. I don't believe God really cares because I don't attribute any human limitations on what I call God, and even if "he" did care, "he" should be omnipotent enough to know I'm referring to a popular concept and not "him" directly. I'm not an Atheist and I'm not saying the Bible's full of crap (though I think many Christian "authorities" are) I just don't think it's any better than the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or the Tao te Ching or any other great religous work.

Well, I think it's time I said something here(cue the guy in the back shouting: "Who the hell are you? Get off the stage!").

Mr. Crab, all your points were valid, and I was just about to say the same, although if you're arguing the existence of god, you seem to be using the wrong strategy.

Anyway, I think that the bible, as well as other religious texts, started as attempted explanations for, at the time, inexplicable phenomena, much like most ancient myths. I think that over time, it was mixed with other legends and such, and began attracting many followers. I believe that then many empires began to use religion to govern the people. For example - In monarchy, the monarch was often said that his/her line was chosen by god, or something along those lines. By using religion as such, the government can rely on the ethereal judge and jury established by the bible or similar documents - simply a tool to suppress the masses, although I'm sure most of the governors joined them in this belief.

I think that this is how the bible came into existence, and I find that the more we know about the earth and the universe, the more that the text within such documents are contradicted.

I'll leave you with this quote from Albert Einstein to (mis?)interpret: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Ah, see, you can posit the existence of something that is neither matter nor energy and call it spirit if you *want* to, but why *would* you? Bearing in mind that matter and energy are the same stuff anyway, let me ask: what are the properties of "spirit"?

I think if ESP exists (or, as I suspect, if some or all of the very different phenomena that are commonly lumped together under the blanket of "ESP" exist) that its working will ultimately be laid bare and sensible, not be revelation but through science. I mention it because it's called "extra-sensory" and seems to imply that if it exists, it consists of some kind of non-organic or spiritual activity. When actually all we mean is it seems to not be included in the "Five Senses" as we think of them. Maybe calling something "supernatural" similarly biases our thinking? Or do y'all think the supernatural too can be laid bare by science?

Separate topic but following up...
"Do you believe there is a difference between being a Jew by birth and being a Jew by religion? If so, what is the relationship between the two?"
I don't think there is a difference. (except that birth is not the only means by which one can become a Jew). However, obviously Jews practice a wide range of levels of observance, and disagree sometimes about what the proper observance is anyway. But I think you were right that there is no "doctrine", that is, there is no set of beliefs one has to hold.

PS thanks STRMKirby for the vote of confidence. I wasn't arguing for or against the existence of God, so that might explain why you thought I was using the wrong strategy for doing so... but what would be a right strategy, if you've got one?

PS Rexmundi, I think possibly only you can know whether you're "taking the lord's name in vain" or not. I would also say that, while it doesn't matter to me what religion you practice if any, there are substantive differences between the great canonical works of various civilizations. The Bhagavad Gita, while certainly worthy of study on the scale of the Bible or other great religious works, is utterly different in values and purpose. Which goes to STRMKirby...

I think religion has been used to suppress or direct the masses, but it has also been used to uplift the masses, and likewise in both respects for individuals. AND at times and for some it has also been not a tool at all but an honest or genuine apprehension.

The political argument against religion is semi-weak because when religion enters the political dimension it becomes solely political, and as such has no more special characteristics than any other political idea.

I had a housemate in college who would turn on evangelical TV for hours on end sipping beer or what-have-you and chanting "OBEY" continuously for hours on end.

The question for me (personally) in this respect is whether I can be both true to myself and my potential and true to my obligations and duties. The effort to find the ground that permits both to the best degree *I* am able I tend to think of as "nobility".

Well, I meant you were using the wrong argument if you were arguing the existence of god, because if anything, it would argue the nonexistence. Also, I'm sure that the bible did other things than suppress the masses, such as uplift them, give them a better outlook on life and all that good stuff, but my point was that I don't think what is in it is true.

Crab- who did that in college?

Rex- I like what you say, man. We are of a similar mind regarding "the great one". Most of the misconceptions of God come from the idea that he's a man, taken to the ultimate degree, his power and faults (insecureity, vengeance) taken to such a degree that it is strangely seen as "holy".

A couple things. First, five types of PSI have been scientifically proven by the most vigorous scientific methods. It's true folks, but the age-old materialist dogma of science keeps that sacrilege from being openly accepted.

Secondly, the church is and has always been a political power, and has used its influence to control the masses. In medieval europe and england, the church would ally itself with certain leaders, damn the others to hell, and then if things changed, release the others from hell. They had the ability to lay a country under Interdict, meaning that church services, baptisms, confessions, and shrivenings could not take place, and all of these things prevented a soul from living in everlasting hellfire. So it's not an opinion that the church had massive power and controlled people through fear. It's a historical fact.

Yes, the part about opinion was that I said(well not actually said, but I think you all got my point) that I don't believe in god. Like I said, I think it originated as a combination of myths and folktales and such. The religion gained more and more followers, and by the time the governments used it to their advantage, it was too late to turn back. And although america was founded by puritans, now that we aren't legally obligated to believe anything, people are(and have been for the past couple hundred years or more) questioning religion. And for good reason: The bible has little to no scientific evidence proving what it says is true, it simply attempts to explain the inexplicable(like, say, Norse myths, for example: they were eventually proven to be wrong). Of course, this is referring to Christianity, but I believe the same about other religions too(although I know far less about them).

Aaaarghhh! Brain overload!

I defy anyone to read the twenty odd posts between my last one and this and be able to keep everything they consider worth responding to in their head. Jeepers, guys, I go away for two days and you totally redecorate!

First, since it's freshest, I'll follow up on some of STRMKirby's points. Certainly some of the bible descends from myth that was set up to explain the inexplainable. Some of it (I'm thinking of books like Tobit) is generally considered to be more of a parable in nature than an actual series of events (which is why books like Tobit are not in all editions of the bible because they are contested)

Now what I've said probably doesn't wash well with some, since as Eugene said, the bible is supposed to have been created through God's direct inspiration.

The thing is, I believe that that is in fact the case. The thing is that while God is devine and infallible, man is not. Because the writers of the bible were men (and perhaps women), it is as though all that devine inspiration goes through a kind of filter which instead of straining out impurities actually adds them. Personal beliefs, linguistic limitations, the evangelist simply wishing something were not so, all go into the mix. This is perhaps where we get a lot of the contradictions in messages in the bible.

Add to this the fact that the gospels were written somewhere between 60 and 120 years after Christ, in several different languages (from memory Luke's was actually written in Greek) and room for human error creeps in again.

I'm sure similar time lags between the recording of events and their actual occurence exist elsewhere in the bible.

Then there is the fact that even the decision of what to include and exclude in the bible is a debate that (in the hands of humans) raged on for centuries. At various times there were up to fifteen or twenty versions of Christ's life that were considered canonical, until finally they were reduced to the four we have today, in part because they were verified as being written closest to Christ's time, but also probably because they agreed the most, and also probably because it suited someone's political ends to have these versions over others.

Even now there is no standard translation or standard set of inclusions. Pulp Fiction's famous Ezekiel 25:17 reads a lot less powerfully in most of the editions I have looked at. Tobit, the book I mentioned earlier, is not included in all editions. In some it is listed as Apochryphal, in others it's just considered in one with the rest.

Just to clarify, as I said earlier, I think the bible is a wonderful book, inspired by God, but in the same way that the phrase "based on the book" can still lead to a totally different movie, "based on God's word" can still lead to a lesser thing when placed in the hands of man.

There were about fifty other things that I wanted to respond to which I have lost in the composing of this post. I think I'm going to have to start taking notes when I read posts in this forum from now on.