Bariton,

Cheer up, things arn't as bad as the seem.

I too spent months studying religion, mostly western from Helenic Greece to modern Chatholisim. I spent weekend at a retreat at the Gethsemani Trappist monastary in kentucky. Standing at the foot of Thomas Mertin's grave was truly a spiritual experience.

I also studied Hegel during this period. I agree with him that not all in religion is bad.

But I never thought that the world conflicts were inherently religious in nature. These occur in a material world with material interests at stake.

We have to look at the conflicts from this materialist perspective and act accordingly.

The majority of us in the world have no material interst in fighting each other.

Les

I'm sorry to say that your essay was all over the map. But you won me back with your closing Einstein quote. I don't even want to try to argue religion with you so I will just repeat this for impact:

To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Genius. In more ways then one.

Les,

I agree with you regarding the true source of most war. It almost always comes down to the material. A great number of the followers of Islam have little or nothing, and nothing to lose.

But the pretext is almost never material. I would think it damn near impossible to impel a nation's people to rise up against another over money. Warmongering leaders must find something far more emotionally appealing to rouse their populations into taking up arms. That "something" is usually either nationalism, religion, or both. I suppose you can also throw racial purity in the mix as well.

I know that historically the church has had its moments in the development of civilization, of providing a central locus, a source for community. But all of this could have been achieved without any notion of a god. Humans are social animals. The benefits of forming communities became apparent to many in the quest for survival. No church was needed.

I know a number of people feel that those of us warning against the dominionists and the raptiles are alarmists. That we are over reacting. That may be. Frankly, I'd rather be proven the fool than suffer the consequences of ignoring their threat and being wrong.

Baritone

Baratone,

No church was needed? That's besides the point. Humanity created God(s), their temples and priests.

Les

Joe,

I know the post has a meandering quality to it, but it is all strung together by the underlying theme of the hatred and violence being perpetrated by religious radicals.

As to arguing religion, it rarely results in little of value. What it all comes down to is that most people believe in a living, personal god, and I don't. Never the twain shall meet. I don't believe in any manifestation of anything one would refer to as a god. I will not humble or prostrate myself before a phantom.

I do like the Einstein quote, though. It is mystery which makes us turn to the next page, drive on over the next hill or turn in the road, to ask questions, to wonder. It is that element of our consciousness - our inquisitive nature -which is, I believe, uniquely human.

Baritone

interesting read, Baritone..thanks for putting this out there

/golfclap

Excelsior?

"I do like the Einstein quote, though. It is mystery which makes us turn to the next page, drive on over the next hill or turn in the road, to ask questions, to wonder. It is that element of our consciousness - our inquisitive nature -which is, I believe, uniquely human."

Uniquely Human? I thought that it was curiosity that killed the cat.

I also like the Einstein quote. I actually think it gives a clue as to the necessity for a God, religion and church. The evolution of humanity was such that we had no idea of a scientific approach to reality in the beginning.

During the early stages of development of an individual in a modern, developed society, the authority, the parent(s), must tell a child a very simplified, not scientifically rigorous, explanation for questions asked. The child is incapable of understanding a thoroughly materialist concept of the world which he or she lives in.

With proper guidance, education, a child of modern society can grow up not depending on superstition. This is analogous to the development of society, but on a different time scale.

Uniquely Human? I thought that it was curiosity that killed the cat.

That old saying merely projects a human attribute onto cats. Usually, the cat who appears to be curious is actually ascertaining whether the object of interest is something it can (a) eat or (b) screw. It's really just being thorough.

But it is a uniquely human trait (as far as we know) to seek out knowledge for its own sake - and leave it till later to figure out if that knowledge might actually be useful.

Baritone,

I read this article once - I read it twice. All I could think was "what a blind man." I've read the comments, and again, all I could think was, "the blind leading the blind in resolutely refusing to see."

One of the reasons things seem so bad is that you lack both faith and trust - as do the majority of your commenters. Logic and shaving with Ockham's razor get you only so far, and no further. This is one of the few truly profound points in The Divine Comedy.

And I'm not going to argue religion with you either...

ah... Ruvy, shalom...

all depends upon what one has faith and trust in, doesn't it?

but you knew that

Excelsior?

Hi, Gonzo.

Good to see you commenting again, though I can distinctly note the fish eye in your remarks. Speaking of which, how fares our finny friend with the sharp teeth, the one in a fight for his life?

Thanks, Baritone, for contrasting the huge difference between a sense of wonder, awe and reverence for the mysteries of the universe with mindless acceptance of religious fiction as fact, and blind adherence to doctrines and dogmas created by a priestly class in order to control others.

no word on our Shark, Ruvy...keeping the fins crossed in Hope for the Best

be Well

Excelsior?

Ruvy,

I would suggest that it is you who are blinded by the glaring light of religious enslavement. Religion turns us away from thought and reason. It requires its adherents to forego doubt and questioning. The true believers of every faith including yours are unable to see beyond the limits of their particular dogma. All other possibilities are without merit.

What would you have people like myself invest our faith and trust in? That you can have faith or trust in a god who creates imperfect creatures and then proceeds to judge us for eternity for those very imperfections is beyond me. Such a god would be a game player, batting us about for his amusement.

Baritone

Les,

In the early stages of civilization religion was science - an attempt by man to explain the unexplainable which was pretty much everything.

But early communities were formed not owing to a common religion, but rather a common need to work together for survival - to live a safer, more productive life. The development of rudimentary religion came after - perhaps not long after, but after.

And yes, man created gods, certainly not the other way around. The sun, the moon, the stars, the wind, the mountains, the trees. It took a while to come around to the notion of god and man having the same "image."

Baritone

Lee,

Your take on the Einstein quote is exactly what struck me about it. There certainly remains a great deal which we don't understand. Einstein obviously understood that, but had the sense not to take any "leap of faith" that the answers were to be found in a god. While he did not embrace atheism per se, it would not be accurate to say that he was a deist either. He looked upon the universe with awe simply owing to its complexity and vastness. Einstein had no use for traditional religion nor did he find an active, personal god plausable.

Baritone

As I told you, Baritone, I won't argue religion with you. You have set up your own "straw man" and proceeded to knock it down, thereby convincing yourself of your rectitude. It isn't my job to convince you of anything.

In my experience, I've seen prophecy come true in my life, and continue to see it coming true. The key point here, and I speak as a former agnostic, is that I did not seek to see prophecy coming true. I was not looking for proof of anything. I was content to maintain myself with a "theological shrug". I had tied up the loose ends that I saw, or at least I thought I had.

But, it seems, prophecy came looking for me to see it. In the end, all I can really argue from, should I choose to, is that which I've seen, and that which I've trusted others to have seen.

It is really all that simple. Logic and reason gets you only so far in deciphering the phenomena around you. After a while, you realize that something else is required to get the whole picture. That something else is faith and trust - NOT RELIGION!

You unwisely mistake rabbis and priests for wisdom, and an institution, religion, for faith.

Thus, you are blind.

Faith is belief without proof, or in the case of Judeo-Christian-Muslimism, belief despite ample proof against.

No thanks, Ruvy.

Faith's EXACTLY why there are bullets flying around your head right now. It's also why you fervently and constantly wish the deaths of others whom you consider to be less than human.

This is vile.

Your comments about "prophecy," on the other hand, are hilarious! Tell us more, you crazy Isreali Dan Brown!

Ruvy,

I don't quite understand your comment about rabbis and priests and their connection with wisdom. I find no wisdom amongst the lot of them.

Religion is the manifestation of faith. You may separate them in your own mind, but with respect to what is happening on this planet day to day, it is those having faith in a god who have created the plethora of religions and erected the temples, synagogues, cathedrals and churches. Again, you may hold yourself above all that, but most don't. And it is largely those who embrace a particular religion who are ready and willing to murder all the infidels who don't.

I'm not sure just what you mean by a "straw man."
I believe I have pretty well discerned the true fallacy of faith and its consequent ruination of human dignity and identity.

I do, in fact, have faith and trust in human intelligence and faith that on balance, most people will carry out their lives morally and ethically. We often let ourselves and others down, but usually not from any proclivity for evil. Rather, it is simply human frailty - the manifestation of our imperfections and lack of mutual understanding. No god is going to provide that for us. If there exists any entity which could be construed as a god, it has long since lost interest in anything we are doing here on this little speck of a planet.

Baritone

Tell us more, you crazy Israeli Dan Brown!

If I were only as rich as Dan Brown - though, in my opinion, he is a one book wonder.

Faith, Leslie, is the reliance on something because it has occurred in the past. I have faith that the sun will rise in the east, for example. My landlord has faith in me that the dated checks I've given him will not bounce, for another example... Do note that the example that does not rely on human action can be relied on much more!

What you call "faith" is really trust in an event without proof that it will occur, and that is what you rail against.

In addition, in your comments you conflate religion with faith and trust.

As to the bullets that are not whizzing around me that you refer to, you are right to assert that this is as a result of religion - and wrong to assert that it is the result of faith, for the reasons delineated above.

In this instance, the Wahhabi assert that all have to abide by their religion or die (that "all" includes you, by the way). We Jews are especially at fault - we succeeded in creating what the Wahhabi have had to buy - a working country.

Religion, specifically the tenets of the Wahhabi religion, are what are at fault in the conflict here. While Moslems may have not interpreted their own scripture properly with respect to Eretz Yisrael (and most Jews are blissfully unaware of that fact), that has not been the driving force for war here; absent the guns and gold of the ibn Sauds, most qadis, sheikhs and imams could be talked into seeing things differently. The Wahhabi, who are not really Moslems at all, have been the driving force for war.

Frankly, I would be shocked if you had the knowledge of either religion or politics to understand what I have just said...

Hashemites Go Home!

(...better graffiti for a better world)

Baritone,

Let's take your comments piece by piece.

I don't quite understand your comment about rabbis and priests and their connection with wisdom. I find no wisdom amongst the lot of them.

Exactly!! Merely having a cleric's collar does not make you wise.

Religion is the manifestation of faith.

No. Religion is a way of life, complete with laws, a doctrine behind the laws, enforcement mechanisms and an arrangement for governance. In Europe, North America and Australasia, the arrangements for governance have been separated from the religion in order to prevent a constant state of civil war, but this concept, which you know as the separation of church and state, does not apply to many parts of the rest of the world, or applies in a far less clear way. Do note that the most barbaric and genocidal states to arise in the last Christian century, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Communist China, arose without reference to religion, and in opposition to it. So so not assume that separating religion from an arrangement for governance is all that civilized or advanced.

...it is largely those who embrace a particular religion who are ready and willing to murder all the infidels who don't.

Here you refer only to the Church Militant (both Catholic and Protestant flavors) of centuries past, and the Wahhabi today. Islam recognizes those who believe in one G-d and requires a tax upon them for not being Moslems.

I'm not sure just what you mean by a "straw man."

Reread you comment #14, particularly, the second paragraph.

I do, in fact, have faith and trust in human intelligence and faith that on balance, most people will carry out their lives morally and ethically.

And here we get to the heart of the matter. The source for the rules that constitute moral and ethical lives is either the Torah for the Abrahamic religions, the Vedas for the various branches of Hinduism, the principles laid down by the Buddha for those who adhere to Buddhist teachings, etc. No scientist in a lab coat came up with a moral code. Period.

No god is going to provide that for us. If there exists any entity which could be construed as a god, it has long since lost interest in anything we are doing here on this little speck of a planet.

Don't assume what you don't know. At least have the sense to say, "as far as I understand," before making such an assertion.

Man invented Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny to manipulate children. If you do not see that man invented gods to manipulate people then you are blind.

Ruvy,

You claim to "know" all of what you speak.

Were there not faith in something outside ourselves, there would be no religion. What you are asserting makes no practical sense.

We atheists always get Stalin, Hitler and Mao thrown in our faces as if they are definitive of anything. In each of the above instances, religious fervor for god was simply replaced by the state. It came down to the same thing - ardent glorification of a nebulous "something" other.

What you refer to as my "straw man" argument is not so. You choose to take it that way because it goes counter to your view. That does not render it false.

Well, you are correct about the lab coats. They didn't come along till much later. However, what you refer to as regards moral codes, yes the various religions throughout history have codified much of what is considered to be acceptable behaviour. However, they did not invent morality. Humans lived by them long before anyone began scratching them into stone tablets, parchment or rice paper. No god spoke to those people. They learned how best to live, again, in order to have a better chance for survival. People living and working together toward a common goal generally made life easier for all.

By the way, you seem to think very highly of yourself and what you seem to presume to be your superior knowledge of religion and politics. Must have been in some of your realized prophecies.

Baritone

...you seem to think very highly of yourself and what you seem to presume to be your superior knowledge of religion and politics. Must have been in some of your realized prophecies.

I can see where this comment

Frankly, I would be shocked if you had the knowledge of either religion or politics to understand what I have just said...

- aimed at Leslie Bohn, and not you, would cause you to make the comment italicized above. Mr. Bohn has been rather condescending elsewhere as well as in his comment here, and my own condescension toward him was aimed at this, not anything you have written or said. You do not strike me as being condescending or contemptuous unless you perceive a person is being that way towards you.

----------------------------------------------------

Were there not faith in something outside ourselves, there would be no religion. What you are asserting makes no practical sense.

The nature of knowledge requires faith. When I look at this computer screen, I do not "know" that it is in front of me, I perceive it to be so, and in order to do that, I have to have faith in my perceptions. I have faith in these perceptions because I have been perceiving in roughly the same way for five and a half decades. That is the point of the definition of "faith" I gave you. Faith is a method of processing experience so that you can reasonably expect what will come next. It is based on what has already occurred.

Trust is a concept in the future tense, as in "I trust that you will go to work tomorrow."

Unless you are person who has perceived G-d around you all of your life (and there are such people), believing in G-d at all requires trust, not faith.
You have to trust in a Force that you never had evidence of in the past. Usually this trust is part of the doctrines that are behind the laws that religions promulgate for moral and ethical living.

But often, and to many people, these doctrines seem empty and hollow - particularly when the "officers of the faith" do not practice them themselves (fill in your own choice of preacher or cleric here) - and the religion seems reduced to just so much hypocrisy. Having been an iconoclast all my life, I know this feeling well.

If you bear in mind that religions are ways of life - not merely assertions of "I believe" - you'll see that being a person who trusts in G-d is very different from one who follows the rules of a religion. They can be the same, but more often than not they are quite different.

Ruvy:

Perhaps we can forever refute the notion of "arrogant" atheists.

I seriously doubt whether you have the education, logical skills or intellect to truly understand what I'm talking about, of course.

And do please tell me more about these fascinating bible-code prophecies, keeping in mind I'm a Capricorn with Gemini rising, and I'm left-handed. I'm rapt.

Leslie Bohn#18. May I assume that you like Baritone are a political liberal atheist. They do go hand and hand. I could be wrong with that statement. To Ruvy you speak of constantly with the deaths of others(human deaths) and thats vile. Why is it vile. Dont you think we are still evolving. We do not have to answer to a higher power. Screw the rule of law crap. We are on our own. As we evolve it's illrelivent should it be the better or the worst for us. What difference does it make. We invented popcorn and beer so just kick back, watch some TV and maybe you and I will be toads or worms tomorrow.

Leslie, you seem really impressed with your comment #18.

Ruvy,

"You have to trust in a Force that you never had evidence of in the past."

As there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any god, "trust" in such an existence is irrational.

People can conjure a belief in about anything. Many believe that god speaks to them directing their life choices. It's a rather convenient way to dodge responsibility for one's actions. "God came to me and told me to become a doctor, enter the priesthood, buy that new Corvette, kill all those devil worshipping kids at the playground." It's all delusion. It's all crap, not to mention extremely presumptive.

Having faith that the TV will come on when I click the appropriate button on the remote is little different from trusting in the same result. The Oxford American dictionary defines these words as follows:

Faith - #1. Complete trust or confidence. 2. firm belief without logical proof.

Trust - 1. A firm belief in the reliability or truth or strength, etc., of a person or thing. 2. A confident expectation.

Again, there does not seem to be a significant difference in these definitions. It's splitting hairs.

Whether one has faith in something, or places trust in something does not put them in a different state of mind. It's a wash.

Knowledge does not rely upon faith without proof. Rather, knowledge requires it. You "know" nothing without proof. Faith or trust in the existence of god is not knowledge as there is no proof of its existence. Ergo, it is irrational.

Rational people demand proof of any assertion. If proof can't be provided, at least thoroughly scrutinized theories must be presented as with the big bang theory with the probability that, if given superior evidence of another theory, that the big bang would be relegated to the back burner or disgarded all together. Scientists don't ascribe to the big bang on faith. It remains at the forefront because nothing more compelling has come to light.

Your statement regarding the difference in those who "trust in god" as opposed to those who simply say "I believe" is, I think presumptive of you as well. But it is also symptomatic of believers who claim that their particular belief system is the only legitimate one, that everyone else is deluded and consequently, hell bound.

Baritone

Ruvy,
Thousands of gods have been worshipped around the world throughout history.

What makes just one (yours, for instance) more worthy of trust than all the others that millions have believed in, and you do not?

GONZO: HI!

hiyas Sonny!!

check here for update as to what i'm thinking about *now*

more to come in this Thread from me...just give me a few minutes..i wanted to respond to Sonny quickly

Excelsior?

sr grumbles: I love to be ignored by leftist elitist liberal atheist assholes.

Only one of the above adjectives applies to me*. Which is appropriate actually, because I only ignore one out of every five of your comments.


*And it's neither of the ones beginning with the letter A.

Baritone,

After six years of living here, I forget sometimes that English is not Hebrew and Hebrew is not English. Many concepts that are first hand to me are foreign to you, as you've never come across them, and this is largely because you are not a Hebrew speaker and have no reason to be.

Your definitions above for faith and trust are reasonable for any English dictionary, and I do not mean to seem unfair here. I've been pulling my definitions from the Hebrew language for the words "emuná" and "bitaHón" respectively, which the English-Hebrew dictionaries translate to mean "faith" and "trust" respectively. But in fact the Hebrew definition for "emuná" is the definition that I've used for "faith" and the Hebrew definition for "bitaHón" is the definition that I've used for "trust". So it is not splitting hairs - it is using hairs from two different heads of hair entirely.

In other words, there are many concepts that do not translate easily across two languages, and the concepts of "emuná" and "bitaHón" are two excellent examples. Translating from one language to another can be a very treacherous business.

So let's back up just a bit and re-word for your benefit and clarity.

The nature of knowledge requires emuná. When I look at this computer screen, I do not "know" that it is in front of me, I perceive it to be so, and in order to do that, I have to have emuná in my perceptions. I have this emuná in them because I have been perceiving in roughly the same way for five and a half decades. That is the point of the definition of "emuná" (which only roughly translates into "faith") that I give you. Emuná is a method of processing experience so that you can reasonably expect what will come next. It is based on what has already occurred.

BitaHón is the concept of emuná projected into the future tense, which only roughly translates into "trust", as in "I trust that you will go to work tomorrow."

Unless you are person who has perceived G-d around you all of your life (and there are such people), believing in G-d at all requires bitaHón, not emuná.

This is because you have to have bitaHón in a Force that you never had evidence of in the past. That is exactly the experience I had as I developed bitaHón.

According to my understanding, it is impossible to scientifically prove the existence of G-d, at least the kind of G-d revealed to Abraham or Moses. One can set up a scenario which allows for the possibility of G-d existing (i.e. "big bang" theory, string theory, etc.) but the proof will not come from science.

This is because G-d is both inside and outside the universe that He created and we are mere creatures within it using science, a collection of testable and verifiable understandings within our own minds - something entirely within the universe - to attempt to verify something that is both within and without the universe we inhabit. That is the problem in a nutshell.

Obviously, I'm not the first person to figure this out. This has been understood for millennia. Others, whom most westerners tend to call mystics, have attempted to round this issue through meditation, expanding the abilities of their minds first to control themselves, and them to perceive issues that normal senses of observation and perception do not reveal. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes their minds cannot handle what they do perceive, and they go nuts instead. Students of kabbala are warned about this.

Naturally, as with everything else in a world of deception and untruth (olám hashéker), there are loads of fakes running around claiming to be prophets and meditators, etc. etc. With this, as with everything else, it is caveat emptor - buyer beware.

I must impress upon you that in explaining all this, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to lay out something in front of you that is not blind assertion or unreasonable, but that is something that is an alternative to what you have chosen to believe heretofore. And if I've not done the best job, I apologize.

I'm not telling you what to believe. What you choose to believe is your own business. But there are options beyond those beliefs. This is what I have learned over time and why I am no longer an agnostic, as I was two decades ago.

In other words there is a door of "bitaHón" available to you to walk through should you choose to do so. You will not necessarily arrive where I have - in fact, it is most likely that you will arrive elsewhere. But that is not the point, nor is it important...

Excellent comments to Baritone's fine article.

Ruvy, maybe what's missing from your presentation are a few examples of how you have "perceived G-d around you all of your life," if that, in fact, applies to you -- at least from the time you transitioned from an agnostic. If you have had experiences in which you have directly "sensed" God, that would constitute something more substantive than what I (and most people) refer to as "faith." You have probably discussed this before, but maybe you could indulge us.

Nice to hear from gonzo. Sorry to hear about the ailment. Sheesh. I would pray for you, but, well, you know ....

@ duane - good to *see* you as well...what, no e-mail?

heh

now, for the topic at hand...

i think that a lot of the Confusion revolves around the definition of soem of the terms...as Ruvy has pointed out in some instances...

allow me to demonstrate...

in the above quoted definition we have a big Clue staring us in the face

faith - firm belief without logical proof.

this shows that one does not have "faith" in the sun rising, technology working etc... since there is plenty of logical proof for such things to occur

one has trust in the empirical data, no "faith" required

that single example of confusion shows why some have extreme difficulty discussing the topic with those of different belief systems, imo

for duane...a fierce bass player you might not have heard - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqKouuAl75o

Excelsior?

Ruvy #34,

I am very impressed. That is the best explanation of one's faith that I have EVER heard.

Les

Duane,

I'm the guy who used to be the agnostic. I'm not the guy with the mystical experiences... One person I know says that G-d feels like a warm blanket to her, always protecting her...

The closest I ever came to sensing G-d in that way was when I was having a heart attack and I thought my wife and kids were panicking. I prayed to G-d, telling Him I was prepared to take whatever was coming my way, but to please give me a clear mind to cope with the problems that might come up in case my wife panicked.

I sensed, as I did this that I was being Listened to by a Presence (the word in Hebrew is sh'khiná). That is the only way I can describe it. And for the entire period that I had to deal with the heart attack and the recovery afterwards, my mind was clear - remarkably so...

The only other thing I can talk about is what happened when I first read the Torah as an adult. I'm a history student, and suddenly seeing certain portions of the Torah (particularly Moses' Song of Witness) packed an intellectual wallop of immense emotional force. I was seeing history in front of me in the form of prophecy, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Te only emotion I could describe afterwards was a tremendous sense of awe.

Gonzo,

Increasingly, I find that English is a less and less suitable medium for explaining many of these concepts. English is a good language for writing contracts or law, and it is a great language for literature; but it is very very weak with the terms needed to deal with spiritual experience. Trying to explain some of these things in English (really Greek or Latin) is like asking an Eskimo to describe a tropical rain forest in his native tongue. Either Greek or Latin will do for explaining Christian concepts here - well you see the problem I face, don't you?

well there are more Germanic roots to English than any other single source, but that quibble aside...

i do think there are plenty of ways to describe anything within the human experience using English (and some outside of it...heh)

yes, i do understand the problem you face..but much of it is of your own making...you grew up speaking English, you know the language...while i can readily grant the difficulty in trying to translate from one to another, you did an admirable job in #34, and i think i did pretty decently , and more simply in #36

if it was easy, it probably would not be worth it, eh?

i think much of the difficulty has to do with subjective versus objective, in many cases...and the fact that some take faith in a belief as a postulate and then try to build from there

one cannot Reason with Faith, imo

oh yeah..and i'm the agnostic here, for those keeping score

Excelsior?

Ruvy you had a heart attack. Please stay away from Cisco and me.

Thanks, Ruvy (#38). That helps. I know it can be difficult to share personal information online with complete strangers.

Gonzo (#36), I've seen that one, but thanks. He's a monster. Keep 'em coming.

argh..sorry about that duane...i'll try and dig up something...unique...

how about this?

heh

Excelsior?

That's some fine playing there, gonzo. And ... unique! A helluva lotta music for just four strings. Heh.

If we could just get a bunch of atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Jainists, Shintos, etc. together in Central Park to listen to this guy, I'm pretty sure all our differences would just melt away.

Ruvy, etal,

I'm sure you all missed me. I had to tend to my livelihood for a bit.

I agree with Les regarding your explanation. However, I don't see how such a concept of god can lend itself to traditional religion. What you describe comes closer to what I believe Einstein was getting at.

If one must use the term "god" to describe anything at all, I'd say that god is all. God is not something distinct from anything else. In that sense then, the act of humbling oneself or worshipping before some divine "other" is pointless, because we are god.

Nor should it be the basis of warring with others. Yet, that is just where we are - still. The great majority of people who follow one of the major monotheistic traditions - be they Jews, Muslims or Christians - believe that theirs is a personal god. That it is consciously and purposefully attending to each and everyone's daily lives, overseeing and actively involved with everyone and everything, ultimately sitting in judgement. And more, the Christians and Muslims in particular see theirs as a strict and jealous god who demands that its followers smite all non-believers - those of other (i.e. false)or no faith.

Frankly, I am not familiar enough with the teachings of Judaism to know how the above is reflected in its traditions or dogma.

However, as an aside, I am familiar with the fundamentalist christian "plan" for the war at Armageddon that initially includes a pact, if you will, with Israel until the initial battle is won. Then, according to their vision, if Jews intend to stay the course and gain access thru the pearly gates, they must ultimately accept christ as their lord and saviour. Failing that, they get "left behind" with the rest of us heathens.

I know it's all a load of crap, but with that knowledge, it is difficult to understand how a number of Jews have, in fact, aligned themselves with christian fundamentalists.

Getting back, your perception of god is not common. It is more akin to say, the Tao, Lao-tsu's vision of nature being all encompassing, and without naming it, god, the unfathomable.

Or, perhaps, Einstein's "mystery."

Baritone

Baritone et alia,

While my beliefs originate in Torah, and the understanding of Jewish sages, they present to you all a baseline concept of the Divinity (it would be the height of arrogance to claim any of this wisdom as my own). One can look at what I've written and see the bare bones of both emuná and bitaHón.

It is very human to want to say that this Divinity would not involve Himself in such pedestrian things as the individual affairs of a donkey on the road, a rabbit or a man (see the end of comment #19), but Judaism is counter-intuitive this way. It is also a very human trait, that if one believes that a Divinity is not above opening the mouth of a jenny-ass to speak, for one example, or healing a man of leprosy, for another, that this Divinity should intervene on that individual's behalf as well.

In a very hard world where one is often stripped to his bare essence to survive or to survive a difficult test (a husband completely crippled in hospital with heart failure for three years or more, living on the streets in the Twin Cities with no roof over one's head for a winter, being expelled from one's home or livelihood) a response of "G-tt soll helfen", or "hashém ya'azór" or to translate: "G-d will help" is also very human...

It was precisely this kind of test upon me - homelessness - that finally moved me from the agnostic column to believer. The wisdom of an Orthodox Jew I knew who would habitually say, "G-tt soll helfen" when he was in trouble (a frequent occurrence) was finally impressed upon me the day I was kicked out of a county shelter with literally no where to go, and a dollar (withdrawn the day before from my bank account, which still had ONE dollar remaining) in my pocket. I had nothing else to say in the face of the predicament I was in...

The rest came later, slowly, very slowly, but looking back, that is when the first step to belief was made.

Finally, a note to Baritone, Duane, Les Slater and to Gonzo. We may not agree. That we do or do not is not that important. The benefit of discussing these things civilly with you is that it can enlighten all of us, and for me personally, to give me the opportunity to hone my blade of persuasiveness. One never knows when that blade will be needed to cut a swathe elsewhere...

Ruvy,

While I have not been faced with a serious life circumstance such as homelessness, or true poverty (I have had times when I didn't know where the next dollar was coming from, but I don't believe that really qualifies as poverty in the larger sense,) I am a firm believer that we either make our own way, and/or that we are "blessed," if you will, by the kindness of family, friends, and yes, in some instances, the kindness of strangers (kudos to Mr. Williams.)

While humanity is all over the place as regards our behaviour toward each other, people can be and often are very generous - sometimes even Republicans. ("What?! Generous Republicans? That's crazy talk." Nevertheless.)

I go bonkers when someone has just saved someone say, from a burning building and they stand there and say in forced humility that the lord gave them the strength... yada, yada, yada. It had nothing to do with god. It had to do with a human being responding to a situation and taking action. Whether that counts as heroism is another discussion, perhaps.

I have heard people, after having been saved from some life threatening situation giving thanks to god with no mention of the people who actually saved them. And nevermind that perhaps any number of other people may have died.

A tornado tore through Indy a few years ago. A catholic church, grade and high school stood in its path, but it veered to the west and missed all of those properties. The high school's "president" as his position is termed, made a public statement about god's grace having saved the church and schools.

Unfortunately for others, though, the veering of the tornado's path meant that other buildings - homes and businesses - were damaged or destroyed. An entire commercial corner was wiped out just north and west of the school. Several small businesses were ruined. (By the way, it should be noted that there were few if any students at either of the schools and only a handful of people were at the church.)

While no one was killed by this storm, the twister tore a path measuring over a 120 miles long and did untold damage including damage or destruction of other school buildings and churches. For this fellow to claim that god picked them out for salvation over those less fortunate was, I think, presumptive and arrogant.

I don't know if the above was appropos of anything. However, it does serve as an illustration of what I deem to be religious hypocracy. Things don't happen for a reason. While science can predict action and reaction, beyond that, there is no "reason" for any event or sequence of events - no divine providence or vengeance. That one person survives a horrendous plane crash while 150 others perished is owing only to circumstance, to random chance, not to god.

Baritone

PS - I prefer civility as well. It is the only way to effectively communicate. Anything else breeds misunderstanding and chaos.

I do understand what you are talking about. And in that people often wrongfully ignore the people whose actions save them from disaster, you are very right.

Based on your comment, you won't agree with this article, but give it a look anyway.

Over thirty Scud missiles hit this country in 1991 while the United States was invading Iraq. Buildings were destroyed, thousands of apartments ruined and FOUR drug stores that had recently decided to stay open on the Sabbath were destroyed. ONE person died from the bombardment, and he died from a heart attack suffered from the stress of the Scud strike. Twenty others died because they did not know how to handle the gas masks they were using.

ONE Scud hit an American base in Saudi Arabia - over two hundred American servicemen and women died from that Scud.

Given that, I have trouble agreeing with "there is no "reason" for any event or sequence of events - no divine providence or vengeance. That one person survives a horrendous plane crash while 150 others perished is owing only to circumstance, to random chance, not to G-d."

Ruvy,

I cannot agree about even the events you site as being anything but random chance. Given the vastness of the universe and even when reducing it to earthly limits, we are talking about, what, over 3 billion human beings all flitting around the the planet involved in countless activities? Regardless of how unlikely any particular event might seem, the numbers simply make them not only possible, but probable.

All kinds of things happen daily that seem so unlikely, even less likely than being struck by lightning, and yet they do happen.

In some of the events you describe, keep in mind that you had a group of people, in this case the Iraqi army, intent upon death and destruction. Couple that with the unpredictability of scud missiles, any number of results are likely, even unlikely ones. Remember chaos theory and the flapping butterfly wings in Africa being the source of a hurricane that hits Florida.

Baritone

Ruvy is, no doubt, a sincere and thoughtful man who, like billions of others, has chosen to live his life in accordance with ancient stories that give meaning for him to his existence.

If that is an individual's choice, fine. It becomes a problem though when individuals, cultures and nations, guided by these choices, threaten the rights, lives, and freedoms of "non-believers", as always happens.

And, an argument about divine providence based on personal observation and interpretation is a seriously flawed argument. If one's personal observation and interpretation of events is a legitimate standard to use, then all personal observations and interpretations are equally valid and they, of course, are often illogical and/or contradict each other.

Lee,

Exactly! There are as many perspectives as there are people. Can all or any of them be correct?

As you note, Ruvy has obviously given all of this a great deal of consideration and he has made his choices, which on an individual basis is fine.

But as you also note, and we know all too well, humanity has long been scourged by religion of all kinds dating back to early civilizations. It's a heavy price to pay for any "civilizing" influence religion may provide. All too often what religious leaders refer to as civilizing is actually control. And that control is more often than not maintained by intimidation, suppression and violence.

Baritone

up yours assholes.

don't hold back sr, tell us what you really think

how about you put the bottle down for a moment, and type out your Thoughts on the subject, rather than frivolous drive by scatalogical drivel?

to be fair, you do hit the Funny once in a while, but rarely

i'm honestly Interested in your views on this subject....care to try?

Excelsior?

I think Michael Jackson is strange but a good singer. What say you gonzo? As for man, God and armageddon. It's true their is man/women and a God and armageddon will happen. Dont believe MJ will be the MC for this event. Does that help to hit your funny?

well, it does hit the bizarre button

and i've always thought MJ was over rated, but no doubt on the strange part

for sr, heh

watch the whole thing, if you dare!

Excelsior?

sr,

Thanks for that, sr. It's good to get all that cleared up. I've been so confused. Now, I can rest easy and calmly wait for the end to come.

Is anyone taking bets on who gets raptured?


Baritone

there's another one..the Rapture

can some believer please show me where in Revelations or elsewhere this bit of fantasy comes from?

i know it's part and parcel of the Dispensationalism bullshit, but it appears to be a recent bit, made up of whole cloth with not even dubious connection to anything in scripture, much less anything than can be attributed to anything Jesus has theoretically said himself in any text i am aware of

just curious

Excelsior?

Dont know much about the Rapture. I think thats when people are picked up by flying raptors. No not flying rap artists, flying raptors. Hope this helps.

argh..i messed up a tag in #56, sorry Christopher!!

and sr...helps as much as ya can, i guess

for you, sr....sorry Charlie....

heh

Excelsior?

gonzo was just wondering why you think Im a tea-totaler. How could I make all these intellectual comments with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair if I spent time with the bottle. Captain Morgan sends his best gonzo.

lol..sr , didn't i ask you to put the bottle down for a moment

as for the Captain...
take a frosted mug, mix Captain, Berenzen apple schnapps and tonic equally over ice and enjoy!

a fav of mine from the dim past of my drinking days

Excelsior?

gonzo, tag fixed; fyi, you opened an "a" tag but closed a "b". Damn those letters!

i knew it right after i hit submit, sorry about that Christopher...

miss me?

heh

Excelsior?

I can't remember exactly the origins of the "rapture." Its beginning goes back, I believe, to a couple of religious nuts during the 19th century. If I'm not mistaken, there is a fairly lengthy account of its origins in a book by Gore Vidal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which one. I do know it was one of his essay collections, perhaps The Last Empire or United States.

Nevertheless he dismisses it as ludicrous drivel and bemoans the popularity of LeHaye & Jenkens' Left Behind series of books and considers them to be gibberish, as I do.

Again in an effort to hedge my bets, I want to remind all raptiles to consider me in your wills. They must be worded so that they will be enforced upon your sudden disappearance (say, a pilot leaving his plane in midair or someone leaving a toilet unflushed [eeewww!]) not your death. Proving one's death without a body takes considerable time which, I assume, would be in short supply under the particular circumstances. If I'm doomed to eternal hell, at least I'd like to have some cool stuff to play with before I tumble into the firey pit.

Baritone

thanks Baronius, that is covered in my link to Dispensationialism from earlier

it's made up from whole cloth and has nothing to do with any scriptural text i can find

hence my amusement when some who refer to themselves as "Literalists" also profess belief in this "prophecy"

but they deride the Mormons, or the Wiccans....go figure

Excelsior?

Re #51:

"The arse is the proletariat of body parts", except for sr's, which is his seat of knowledge and understanding.

Re: #53:

Using his immense knowledge and understanding, sr has declared that there is a God. That certainly should clear that up!

Gonzo,

Yes, you are correct about the "dispensationalists." A fellow named Darby, as I recall along with a corhort or two. All a load of crap.

But leave it to some enterprizing American christians to figure out a way to bamboozle a large number of gullible people to make millions.
When it really comes down to it, the god Americans truly bow to is the bottom line. If it makes money, then it must be sacred and holy.

Baritone

should say "some Americans"...with that Qualifier i would have no argument

hey, we all like that bottom line to be in our favor, but some do NOT want it to come at an unethical cost

big difference between the two, eh?

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

Just another note. Mormons are wierd.

Baritone (who is not Baronius)

d'oh!!

my humblest Apologies to both of you, Baritone AND Baronius...pure mental lapse for a moment

/chagrin

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

That's all right. I've learned to live with it.

Baritone

still no excuse for such a boneheaded mistake, but thanks for understanding it was a slip up of names...it's not like anyone could confuse the two of you based on your viewpoints

sorry about that

Excelsior?

Dave sez: "glad to see dan came back to actually defend his position and present his evidence."

Yet Dan presented NO evidence nor did he give any citations.

Stop the insanity, Dave.

lol..wrong thread there, bliffle

Excelsior?

"In some of the events you describe, keep in mind that you had a group of people, in this case the Iraqi army, intent upon death and destruction. Couple that with the unpredictability of scud missiles, any number of results are likely, even unlikely ones. Remember chaos theory and the flapping butterfly wings in Africa being the source of a hurricane that hits Florida."

You are pushing that "coincidence" button awful hard there, Baritone. With that kind of pressure, it just might break.

Theologians are not alone in refusing to see facts they do not like. Scientists do the same thing when confronted with evidence that shreds their theories to bits. One such individual found evidence that indicated that Darwin's theory of slow evolution over the millennia was wrong. The evolutionary process seemed to jump quickly, according to the geologic and archaeological evidence he had found. Unwilling to go against what had become scientific orthodoxy in the 1920's, the scientist quietly left all the evidence in a drawer, catalogued but undocumented. There it sat for decades.

Mind you, I'm NOT taking the side of the folks who misread the Bible and insist on a six-day creation process that took place 6000 years back. That is not the issue here at all.

I am pointing out that scientists can be and are just as blind as theologians. This is the origin of my first two comments here, and the reasons why.

I must take issue with your attempt to tar scientists and theologians with the same brush, Ruvy.

"Good" theologians routinely ignore facts so as to attempt to maintain their dogma or "faith" intact. On the other hand, only "bad" scientists ignore information in order to maintain the integrity of their scientific understanding.

It is therefore entirely inaccurate to try to justify the wilful ignorance of a theologian with the temporary intransigence of one individual scientist, although of course I fully understand why you are trying to do so, you little faithist you!

I must take issue with your attempt to tar scientists and theologians with the same brush, Ruvy.

"Good" theologians routinely ignore facts so as to attempt to maintain their dogma or "faith" intact.

Chris, I'm surprised that it has taken this long for you to pop in a comment here. Either your discipline has been unusually good or the general level of civility here as opposed to elsewhere at BC has kept you occupied - elsewhere...

Now, I'm not an Anglican, but one of the better theologians I'm familiar with - as well one of the better scientists I'm familiar with - was Sir Isaac Newton.

Are you saying that Sir Isaac was deliberately ignoring facts by devoting most of his life to deciphering the secrets of the Book of Daniel and trying to figure the codes in the Bible he had heard about?

You do realize that Newton's works in gravity, mathematics and physics were not his primary efforts but mere secondary ones, don't you?

Good theologians do not ignore facts at all. Like good scientists, they try to increase the sum of human knowledge and understanding. The sources they look at are different. That is why Sir Isaac Newton spent a good portion of his intellectual efforts trying to decipher the secrets in the Book of Daniel, and fish out the elusive Codes in the Torah. He was trying to increase human knowledge and understanding.

In other words, Chris, it was a good Jewish theologian who figured out at least eight centuries ago that the age of the universe was over fourteen billion years - long before the cosmologists with the lab coats got there.

Conversely, it is a bad Jewish theologian, Rav Eliashiv, who has condemned a fellow rabbi, Rav Nathan Slifkin, for talking about a universe millions of years old. Rav Elyashiv's actions increase human ignorance and intolerance, rather than human knowledge or understanding.

PEOPLE ignore realities that are uncomfortable, no matter what their profession is. But your own evident hostility to theologians is so great that you refuse to see that they, like scientists, are people.

Good Sabbath to you.

Reuven

You just know when commenters start taking cheap shots like criticising the good manners of their colleagues that they have entirely run out of adequate or relevant responses.

I'm not going to engage in an entirely pointless debate with you about the flaws of Isaac Newton, but it is simply ridiculous to try to justify your previous comment, or criticise my entirely contemporary view, by leaping back in time several hundred years.

As you full well know but deceptively ignore, there was no clear distinction between science and mysticism in those less enlightened times.

In this more clear sighted age, the "pure" theologian has been most thoroughly discredited for being at best hopelessly naive, at worst a deliberate deceiver that refuses to accept facts they find inconvenient.

I'm not hostile to theologians Ruvy, I'm hostile to all those who would perpetrate lies in order to serve their own ends and mislead humanity. I know enough about you and what you know to be sure that you are one of those who will warp any facts to suit your own dogmatic views.

It's one of your pet techniques to come out with blatantly ludicrous remarks like "But your own evident hostility to theologians is so great that you refuse to see that they, like scientists, are people". I also know you're a decent bloke in essence but your heart and mind are apparently irredeemably twisted by the dogma that blinds you.

You're actually fortunate that there are no gods for if there were, you would undoubtedly be rejected by those you claim to serve for the corruption that lies at the heart of your posture. Ironic, huh?

There was a bug in (yesterdays) Firefox/linux that scrambled text entry formatting and swapped among threads. I suspect it's a keyboard handler run amok. Hope it's fixed by the new version that just installed. The problem is compounded by BCs interface which does not allow an author to edit a mistake in an input he's posted.

With respect to theologians, or more precisely, theology, I loved Richard Dawkins' writing that he wasn't even sure that it is a subject. Certainly not, in his opinion something worthy of inquiry.

The fact that a great percentage of scientists, not all certainly, but most are either proclaimed or in effect atheists should not be taken lightly. By and large science is not a field for the feeble minded. These are intelligent people.

Christopher's comments regarding good and bad scientists and theologians is apt and insightful.
It should also be pointed out the a "good" scientist will quickly abandon a position given new evidence to the contrary. Theologians hold fast to ancient dogma despite new understanding of humanity, the world or the universe.

Baritone

Who created mosquitoes? I have one of these little bastars flying around my office at this moment. When I lived in Alaska the suckers were so big you could grab the pricks by the wings and burn their cute little feet off with a smoke and send them into the air. Best part was watching them try to land with no feet. Great fun.

Correction. Bastards not bastars.

Damn! the new Firefox is doing the same thing: not returning focus to a TextArea. That's a beginners mistake, and the FF guys aren't beginners so I guess they're breaking in a new guy. Did it twice to me on this one comment.