3 to be 4 will be Ex-Christian eventually

[PatsFanInVa]

I knew I was using verses of the Hebrew Bible you ass. You were the fool who did not realize they were the Prohpets not the Torah,

YOU are a Biblical illiterate.

You know no theology.

You have not read the Bible.

You are a baby Christian.

I know the Bible 50 time better than you do. AND I'm smart enought to know it is Bull ****. You are almost brain dead.

Come on out of the Matrix dude.

http://www.ex-christian.net/

I'd hate to wade into anything here... nah actually, why not?

Okay, first of all, "Torah" is used in a variety of ways. Most narrowly, it's considered the first five books of Moses; it is also used as a synonym for "TANAKH," an abbreviation for "Torah/Navi'im/Ketuvim", which Christians think of (after some rearrangement, etc.), as the "Old Testament." Literally, "Torah" means "instruction;" hence, the tradition in Judaism that there is a written Torah and an oral Torah, handed down generation to generation. This last belief strongly influenced the claims to legitimacy of Chasidism in general, and Kaballah in particular (much of which takes as a founding premise, the existence of this oral Torah.)

So to upbraid someone for "not knowing" that something appears in the prophets not in the "Torah," is really a definitional quibble. The prophets are in the Torah, by many broader definitions (whereas they are the Nevi'im by the definition that gave rise to the acronym TANAKH.)

I've gone on regarding historical ("higher") criticism on other threads, and on still others, I've attempted to explain the value of questioning what one doesn't know, rather than claiming to know it.

I believe, for my part, that such questioning within my own tradition must be done with respect; for I have not jettisoned belief, as has Grogan. From what I do know, what I have questioned and examined, Grogan's response is as legitimate as a religious response, not more so and not less so. There is no conclusive labratory evidence for or against the hypothesized Almighty, after all, and in the absence of such conclusive evidence, we must make a leap of faith to be either atheist or religious.

A man who accepts scientific method unquestioningly as the only legitimate form of inquiry, can defend the position of Atheism as not a leap of faith; however, the moment one says that scientific method is one very good and very specialized mode of inquiry, rather than the ultimate, Atheism becomes a leap of faith as well (this rather hinges on burden of proof; but that's beyond the scope of this post.)

As regard the writings Grogan is so fond of going after, I do not discuss them in detail here, precisely because that is a sure way to have one's faith ridiculed. If that is what one desires, one issues challenges to disputations. I do not do this.

Grogan takes the scriptures as historical accounts, on face value; or as quasi-historical accounts, little non-historical encapsulations of theology (which is perhaps closer to the truth.)

I look at the scriptures as having an historical dimension, which, with much painstaking attention, can be sifted through. The scriptures were written by and for men. Like Grogan, for instance, I do not think God sends beasts to rip apart children who called a prophet "baldy." Unlike Grogan, however, I see the scriptures as a patchwork of stories, chronicles, poetry, and other forms comprising the literature of an ancient culture -- that is, my own culture, at its roots.

And whereas Christianity's and Islam's classics were composed with an overarching religiosity in mind, the TANAKH came into being over the span of about a thousand years (about the length of time it took Rome to rise and fall, for a comparison.) More, depending how you're counting. The point here is, these texts are a collection of types of work, each displaying authorship, intent, political agenda, date of authorship, etc.

These works were not written the afternoon before Jesus was born, in order to set the stage for his drama. They were not written, at the time of their writing, in order to enforce one or another theology. They are in many cases pre-existent works or "traditions" originally divorced from their ultimate "morals" in the Jewish tradition -- and within that tradition, the moral of each is ultimately debateable, even among the orthodox.

The discussions treating these works as theological statements, or part of the machinery of salvation in the Christian model, are alien to the believing Jew's ear, although I do respect the Christian uses of pre-existent materials. After all, that is exactly what I have just discussed vis a vis Jewish use of preexistent materials.

Similarly, the idea that one is getting a very valuable view of these scriptures if one only attends to their worst (to the modern eye) difficulties, is errant. There is more to study in the TANAKH than its "deficiencies," if one takes Jewish scripture as a snapshot. It is quite simply not a snapshot, but a tapestry.

There is a story that Hillel is approached by a pagan, who tells him to explain Judaism standing on one foot.

Hillel says "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Supposedly the pagan converts, but after a long, long time. That's probably the pace I'd like to see conversions proceed on, so there's time for that "go and study" bit.

Grogan, I've written before that asking questions puts you on the right track; I will say to you, as I say of myself and of 3tob4, that being triumphantly satisfied with one's answers, is as intellectually dangerous as never asking the questions. I am not certain this will permeate for you, and I'm pretty sure it never really has for 3toB, but there it is.

From a Jewish perspective, as I've said before, one's very identity is wrapped up in "struggle with God" (Yisra'el.) It is not a problematic stage of progression before one finds peaceful acceptance and harmonious arrangement of all the ragged details of life and religion. Struggle is the point, to ask the next question, and question the answer, etc. One can lose faith, but basic to Judaism -- basic enough that it's even assumed, from the Garden onward -- one can not really lose curiosity.

I have heard that one feature of "Heaven" in some folk descriptions, is that your questions are all answered.

If the answers are definitive, I think they might be thinking of Hell. Huh. Come to think of it, maybe it's the same place.

PFnV

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

that had to be one of the most impressive and eloquent posts I have seen in a long time, that was truely awsome PFnV.....

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thanks Dynasty

 

[mgteich]

Hillel and Yeshua (Jesus) summed up the faith in the same way. This isn't surprising since they were both Jewish teachers (masters).

It is somewhat strange to hear a Jew thinking that Genesis does not make theological statements. There are indeed many kinds of literature in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first few chapters of Genesis are theological, especially that portion written by the priests. They specifically added theological content. For thousand of years, as detailed in the Talmud and Mishna, rabbis fought over the theological meaning of each word in the books of Moses, especially Genesis. Some think that Moses wrote all five books; a somewhat interesting idea since some was written after his death.

It is also strange to hear the blanket statement (not yours) that Catholics and Jews don't literally believe the bible. That would be news to those who wrote the Catholic cathecism. Catholics do understand that there are many kinds of literature in Scripture. However they believe that every word is true, in that it speaks regarding faith or morality. Surely, the orthodox rabbis of my childhood would be horrified to be told that Jews do not believe the truth of Scripture. I recall a rabbi discussed the age of the world and scientific fossil evidence that the earth was billions of years old. He simply asked whether we thought that G_d could create fossils.

Yes, we must forgive one another (well 70 x 7 times).

I am always mystified be the notion that everyone's views are somehow equal and equally likely to be true, sort of relativism carried to the ulitmate.

The Truth is the truth, no matter what I believe. So it is with gravity, so it with grace, so it is with creation, so it is with G_d. There is no greater falsehood than the statement that truth depends on the speaker. The world is not all subject to scientific inquiry. The notion that only the material world exists is a relatively modern faith and myth.

I do feel for those who those who believe that religion is scourge of history. Surely they've never been in a leper colony or in the hospitals and clinics in most of the third world, almost all run by religious groups. They haven't been in the AID's wards, primarily run by Catholic religious. They haven't been in soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Yes, many have fought in the name of religion. Man has always fought; religion has often been an excuse. Is the opposite true, that in countries with no religion, there has been no war. naaah

You are quite right that one must question their faith and the components of that faith. Of course! No faith not worth questioning is worth anything at all.
Of course our life is a struggle with G_d. This is the core belief of Jews and Muslims (jihad is exactly that struggle). For Chistians and Buddhist the langauge is somewhat different, but the walk, the struggle is similar. Both these faith walks talk of struggling less and allowing the Spirit within us to show through. They talk of detachment and compassion.

I have listened to much of these posts. Many ar at different places in the walk. Some seem on the path of life, the pass of struggle, the path of submission, the path of detachment. Some seem lost for time. One can never judge where someone else is coming from. One cannot live in another's shoes. We can only tell other where we are, where we have been. So it is with Dungy, so it is with us all.

Finally, yes Christians and Jews do take a different interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the core meanings are not different. G_d created the heavens and earth and declared them good, He asked man to tend the garden (the first command); he created man and women in His image. We are asked to love G_d and each other. All the torah is contained in those two commands. As we know, when the mishiach (messiah) comes, He will answer the one question that divides Jews and Christians. "Is this the first time?"

All the rest is indeed commentary.

just my two cents

I'd hate to wade into anything here... nah actually, why not?


I believe, for my part, that such questioning within my own tradition must be done with respect; for I have not jettisoned belief, as has Grogan. From what I do know, what I have questioned and examined, Grogan's response is as legitimate as a religious response, not more so and not less so. There is no conclusive labratory evidence for or against the hypothesized Almighty, after all, and in the absence of such conclusive evidence, we must make a leap of faith to be either atheist or religious.

A man who accepts scientific method unquestioningly as the only legitimate form of inquiry, can defend the position of Atheism as not a leap of faith; however, the moment one says that scientific method is one very good and very specialized mode of inquiry, rather than the ultimate, Atheism becomes a leap of faith as well (this rather hinges on burden of proof; but that's beyond the scope of this post.)

As regard the writings Grogan is so fond of going after, I do not discuss them in detail here, precisely because that is a sure way to have one's faith ridiculed. If that is what one desires, one issues challenges to disputations. I do not do this.

Grogan takes the scriptures as historical accounts, on face value; or as quasi-historical accounts, little non-historical encapsulations of theology (which is perhaps closer to the truth.)

I look at the scriptures as having an historical dimension, which, with much painstaking attention, can be sifted through. The scriptures were written by and for men. Like Grogan, for instance, I do not think God sends beasts to rip apart children who called a prophet "baldy." Unlike Grogan, however, I see the scriptures as a patchwork of stories, chronicles, poetry, and other forms comprising the literature of an ancient culture -- that is, my own culture, at its roots.

And whereas Christianity's and Islam's classics were composed with an overarching religiosity in mind, the TANAKH came into being over the span of about a thousand years (about the length of time it took Rome to rise and fall, for a comparison.) More, depending how you're counting. The point here is, these texts are a collection of types of work, each displaying authorship, intent, political agenda, date of authorship, etc.

These works were not written the afternoon before Jesus was born, in order to set the stage for his drama. They were not written, at the time of their writing, in order to enforce one or another theology. They are in many cases pre-existent works or "traditions" originally divorced from their ultimate "morals" in the Jewish tradition -- and within that tradition, the moral of each is ultimately debateable, even among the orthodox.

The discussions treating these works as theological statements, or part of the machinery of salvation in the Christian model, are alien to the believing Jew's ear, although I do respect the Christian uses of pre-existent materials. After all, that is exactly what I have just discussed vis a vis Jewish use of preexistent materials.

Similarly, the idea that one is getting a very valuable view of these scriptures if one only attends to their worst (to the modern eye) difficulties, is errant. There is more to study in the TANAKH than its "deficiencies," if one takes Jewish scripture as a snapshot. It is quite simply not a snapshot, but a tapestry.

There is a story that Hillel is approached by a pagan, who tells him to explain Judaism standing on one foot.

Hillel says "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Supposedly the pagan converts, but after a long, long time. That's probably the pace I'd like to see conversions proceed on, so there's time for that "go and study" bit.

Grogan, I've written before that asking questions puts you on the right track; I will say to you, as I say of myself and of 3tob4, that being triumphantly satisfied with one's answers, is as intellectually dangerous as never asking the questions. I am not certain this will permeate for you, and I'm pretty sure it never really has for 3toB, but there it is.

From a Jewish perspective, as I've said before, one's very identity is wrapped up in "struggle with God" (Yisra'el.) It is not a problematic stage of progression before one finds peaceful acceptance and harmonious arrangement of all the ragged details of life and religion. Struggle is the point, to ask the next question, and question the answer, etc. One can lose faith, but basic to Judaism -- basic enough that it's even assumed, from the Garden onward -- one can not really lose curiosity.

I have heard that one feature of "Heaven" in some folk descriptions, is that your questions are all answered.

If the answers are definitive, I think they might be thinking of Hell. Huh. Come to think of it, maybe it's the same place.

PFnV

 

[3 to be 4]

Hillel and Yeshua (Jesus) summed up the faith in the same way. This isn't surprising since they were both Jewish teachers (masters).

It is somewhat strange to hear a Jew thinking that Genesis does not make theological statements. There are indeed many kinds of literature in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first few chapters of Genesis are theological, especially that portion written by the priests. They specifically added theological content. For thousand of years, as detailed in the Talmud and Mishna, rabbis fought over the theological meaning of each word in the books of Moses, especially Genesis. Some think that Moses wrote all five books; a somewhat interesting idea since some was written after his death.

It is also strange to hear the blanket statement (not yours) that Catholics and Jews don't literally believe the bible. That would be news to those who wrote the Catholic cathecism. Catholics do understand that there are many kinds of literature in Scripture. However they believe that every word is true, in that it speaks regarding faith or morality. Surely, the orthodox rabbis of my childhood would be horrified to be told that Jews do not believe the truth of Scripture. I recall a rabbi discussed the age of the world and scientific fossil evidence that the earth was billions of years old. He simply asked whether we thought that G_d could create fossils.

Yes, we must forgive one another (well 70 x 7 times).

I am always mystified be the notion that everyone's views are somehow equal and equally likely to be true, sort of relativism carried to the ulitmate.

The Truth is the truth, no matter what I believe. So it is with gravity, so it with grace, so it is with creation, so it is with G_d. There is no greater falsehood than the statement that truth depends on the speaker. The world is not all subject to scientific inquiry. The notion that only the material world exists is a relatively modern faith and myth.

I do feel for those who those who believe that religion is scourge of history. Surely they've never been in a leper colony or in the hospitals and clinics in most of the third world, almost all run by religious groups. They haven't been in the AID's wards, primarily run by Catholic religious. They haven't been in soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Yes, many have fought in the name of religion. Man has always fought; religion has often been an excuse. Is the opposite true, that in countries with no religion, there has been no war. naaah

You are quite right that one must question their faith and the components of that faith. Of course! No faith not worth questioning is worth anything at all.
Of course our life is a struggle with G_d. This is the core belief of Jews and Muslims (jihad is exactly that struggle). For Chistians and Buddhist the langauge is somewhat different, but the walk, the struggle is similar. Both these faith walks talk of struggling less and allowing the Spirit within us to show through. They talk of detachment and compassion.

I have listened to much of these posts. Many ar at different places in the walk. Some seem on the path of life, the pass of struggle, the path of submission, the path of detachment. Some seem lost for time. One can never judge where someone else is coming from. One cannot live in another's shoes. We can only tell other where we are, where we have been. So it is with Dungy, so it is with us all.

Finally, yes Christians and Jews do take a different interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the core meanings are not different. G_d created the heavens and earth and declared them good, He asked man to tend the garden (the first command); he created man and women in His image. We are asked to love G_d and each other. All the torah is contained in those two commands. As we know, when the mishiach (messiah) comes, He will answer the one question that divides Jews and Christians. "Is this the first time?"

All the rest is indeed commentary.

just my two cents

That what truly awesome!!! Thank you for everything you said.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Hillel and Yeshua (Jesus) summed up the faith in the same way. This isn't surprising since they were both Jewish teachers (masters).

It is somewhat strange to hear a Jew thinking that Genesis does not make theological statements.

Here's what I said, MG:

Grogan takes the scriptures as historical accounts, on face value; or as quasi-historical accounts, little non-historical encapsulations of theology (which is perhaps closer to the truth.)

I look at the scriptures as having an historical dimension, which, with much painstaking attention, can be sifted through. The scriptures were written by and for men. Like Grogan, for instance, I do not think God sends beasts to rip apart children who called a prophet "baldy." Unlike Grogan, however, I see the scriptures as a patchwork of stories, chronicles, poetry, and other forms comprising the literature of an ancient culture -- that is, my own culture, at its roots.

Nowhere here do you see that there are no theological statements in Genesis, nor do I argue that the TANAKH is devoid of theological statements. In fact, I specifically mention that it might be closer to the truth to think of the stories as encapsulations than as pure historical literal accounts (see my statement above.) I like much of the rest of what you say here. I actually wrote a poem in which one line is,

"Israel, Jihad in every cell"

...referring, of course, to the cells in the body, with the "struggle" being the darwinian struggle. It's an interesting irony that the words are so similar in meaning.

As to the less coincidental points you make, I'll have to address them after laboring by the sweat of my brow for a bit.

PFnV

 

[mgteich]

I apologize for mis-characterizing your post, especially with regard to theological content. I should stick more to stating what I believe that is relevant to the discuss.

I don't understand your comment with regard jihad. For the vast majority of Muslims, jihad is the spiritual struggle that all on the walk of life experience.
Some Muslims have hijacked that idea to justify mayhem and war (to mean holy war), much as the Crusaders did many centuries ago.

I am also going back and corecting typos in my last post.

Here's what I said, MG:

Nowhere here do you see that there are no theological statements in Genesis, nor do I argue that the TANAKH is devoid of theological statements. In fact, I specifically mention that it might be closer to the truth to think of the stories as encapsulations than as pure historical literal accounts (see my statement above.) I like much of the rest of what you say here. I actually wrote a poem in which one line is,

"Israel, Jihad in every cell"

...referring, of course, to the cells in the body, with the "struggle" being the darwinian struggle. It's an interesting irony that the words are so similar in meaning.

As to the less coincidental points you make, I'll have to address them after laboring by the sweat of my brow for a bit.

PFnV

 

[mgteich]

just fixing typos

Hillel and Yeshua (Jesus) summed up the faith in the same way. This isn't surprising since they were both Jewish teachers (masters).

It is somewhat strange to hear a Jew thinking that Genesis does not make theological statements. There are indeed many kinds of literature in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first few chapters of Genesis are theological, especially that portion written by the priests. They specifically added theological content. For thousands of years, as detailed in the Talmud and Mishna, rabbis fought over the theological meaning of each word in the books of Moses, especially Genesis. Some think that Moses wrote all five books; a somewhat interesting idea since some of the events occured after the death of Moses.

It is also strange to hear the blanket statement (not yours) that Catholics and Jews don't literally believe the bible. That would be news to those who wrote the Catholic cathecism. Catholics do understand that there are many kinds of literature in Scripture. However, they believe that every word is true, in that it speaks regarding faith or morality. Surely, the orthodox rabbis of my childhood would be horrified to be told that Jews do not believe the truth of Scripture. I recall a rabbi discussed the age of the world and scientific fossil evidence that the earth was billions of years old. He simply asked whether we thought that G_d could or could not create fossils.

Yes, we must forgive one another (well 70 x 7 times).

I am always mystified be the notion that everyone's views are somehow equal and equally likely to be true, sort of relativism carried to the ultimate.

The Truth is the Truth, no matter what I believe. So it is with gravity, so it with grace, so it is with creation, so it is with G_d. There is no greater falsehood than the statement that Truth depends on the speaker. The world is not all subject to scientific inquiry. The notion that only the material world exists is a relatively modern faith and myth.

I do feel for those who those who believe that religion is the scourge of history. Surely, they've never been in a leper colony or in the hospitals and clinics in most of the third world, almost all run by religious groups. They haven't been in the AID's wards, primarily run by Catholic religious. They haven't been in soup kitchens or homeless shelters. Yes, many have fought in the name of religion. Man has always fought; religion has often been an excuse. Is the opposite true, that in countries with no religion, there has been no war? naaah

You are quite right that one must question their faith and the components of that faith. Of course! No faith not worth questioning is worth anything at all.

Of course, our life is a struggle with G_d. This is the core belief of Jews and Muslims (jihad is exactly that struggle). For Christians and Buddhists, the langauge is somewhat different, but the walk, the struggle is similar. Both these faith walks talk of struggling less and allowing the Spirit within us to show through. They talk of detachment and compassion.

I have listened to much of these posts. Many people here are at different places in the walk. Some seem on the path of life, the path of struggle, the path of submission, the path of detachment. Some seem lost for a time. One can never judge where someone else is coming from. One cannot live in another's shoes. We can only tell others where we are, where we have been. So it is with Dungy, so it is with us all.

Finally, yes, Christians and Jews do take a different interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the core meanings are not different. G_d created the heavens and the earths and declared them good, He asked man to tend the garden (the first command); He created man and woman in His image. We are asked to love G_d and each other. All the Torah is contained in those two commands. As we know, when the mishiach (messiah) comes, He will answer the one question that divides Jews and Christians. "Is this the first time?"

All the rest is indeed commentary.

just my two cents

 

[PatsFanInVa]

MG, my self-quote (re: Israel and Jihad) was in the context of a poem I wrote. The salient point, in terms of this discussion, is the same as yours -- that Jews and Muslims have introduced terms for parallel spiritual struggles, and that those terms have morphed into words you can hardly speak without engaging in a debate (Yisra'el and Jihad.) In the popular mind, they're diametrically opposed, based on what the popular mind knows of the terms' meanings. In their etymology, they are parallel. In terms of the Darwinian connection, that's an aside not germane to this conversation.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

MG, I'll note agreement, disagreement, and expansion by way of gloss on your text (for the sake of expediency I've used your first version, so my apologies for using the "typos" version):

Hillel and Yeshua (Jesus) summed up the faith in the same way. This isn't surprising since they were both Jewish teachers (masters).

expansion:
Hillel was considered the head of the Jewish community from about 30 B.C.E. to 10 C.E. It is likely, then, that Jesus in this instance rephrased Hillel's original saying. It is of course also possible that this was a pre-existent phrasing, and the story regarding Hillel had to do with him using a proverbial saying well-known at the time, though there is little evidence to support this notion. Finally, it is possible that one or both came by their wisdom ex post facto by way of attribution. The first possibility seems to me the most likely.

It is somewhat strange to hear a Jew thinking that Genesis does not make theological statements. There are indeed many kinds of literature in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first few chapters of Genesis are theological, especially that portion written by the priests. They specifically added theological content. For thousand of years, as detailed in the Talmud and Mishna, rabbis fought over the theological meaning of each word in the books of Moses, especially Genesis. Some think that Moses wrote all five books; a somewhat interesting idea since some was written after his death.

expansion:
We've already dealt with my own statement. I'm curious as to whether in the remainder of this paragraph, you are making reference to the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP and all that)? It's pure curiosity on my part. As I've stated elsewhere here, I do not like to discuss Jewish scripture in depth, purely because to do so in the wrong company opens up the possibility of misinterpretation. But I am curious as to statements like "that portion written by the priests."

It is also strange to hear the blanket statement (not yours) that Catholics and Jews don't literally believe the bible. That would be news to those who wrote the Catholic cathecism. Catholics do understand that there are many kinds of literature in Scripture. However they believe that every word is true, in that it speaks regarding faith or morality. Surely, the orthodox rabbis of my childhood would be horrified to be told that Jews do not believe the truth of Scripture. I recall a rabbi discussed the age of the world and scientific fossil evidence that the earth was billions of years old. He simply asked whether we thought that G_d could create fossils.

partial disagreement:
Jews and Catholics, from the beginning, have accepted readings other than literal. When you say "However they [the Catholics] believe that every word is true, in that it speaks regarding faith or morality," and make a parallel statement regarding belief in "truth of scripture" among orthodox rabbis, you ellide the difference between literal truth and spiritual truth (which is precisely the point.) It's most accurate to say that within Judaism, there are beliefs which turn around a belief in a literal truth, and there are beliefs which are destroyed if the truth in question is not understood via allegory or another non-literal approach. I further do not believe that any of the sects of Christianity or Judaism maintains a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, despite the claims of the sect or of its detractors. But by these grounds, it is equally unsettling to hear a distinction drawn among sects, since none of them is strictly literal in its reading. One can only draw a distinction based on the belief of the adherents that they are literal believers, despite evidence to the contrary.

Yes, we must forgive one another (well 70 x 7 times).

I am always mystified be the notion that everyone's views are somehow equal and equally likely to be true, sort of relativism carried to the ulitmate.
The Truth is the truth, no matter what I believe. So it is with gravity, so it with grace, so it is with creation, so it is with G_d.

careful disagreement:
I'm certainly not a fan of unbridled relativism. I would qualify this statement with the statement that, although the quality of data, the signal-to-noise ratio, the thoughtfulness of inquiry, etc., vary from individual to individual, it is nonetheless also the case that the Truth (in absolute terms) is simply not known, nor could it be, by a human mind. There are simply not enough connections to know the totality of it, or even an approximate knowledge of it by way of metaphor (and each individual's truth is, without question, a metaphor; that is the nature of language. The map, as has been said, is not the land.) This perspective inclines me toward relativism, or at least humility. We all have critical faculties, and can reasonably presume to compare the quality of one another's "truths," provided we have some way to control for our own misjudgments (a dubious but possible undertaking.) What we cannot do is assume our own "truth" to be the Absolute.

There is no greater falsehood than the statement that truth depends on the speaker.
The world is not all subject to scientific inquiry. The notion that only the material world exists is a relatively modern faith and myth.

agreement
My prejudices are similar to yours in this regard. However, it requires another faith and myth to posit the opposite point of view (that something other than the material world exists), of which we do not have scientific proof. As I said, the atheist and the religious man must have faith. Only the agnostic admits to not knowing. But at least the religious man knows that faith is involved. Thoroughgoing materialism, the basis of scientific inquiry, is beyond the scope of scientific proof; it is rather a first principle by which science procedes. The believer can engage in science as well, as long as he acts like someone who does not know the answer via faith. It is handiest if the believer has a somewhat flexible belief system, such an acceptance that a seven-day creation is not a literal notion.

I do feel for those who those who believe that religion is scourge of history. Surely they've never been in a leper colony or in the hospitals and clinics in most of the third world, almost all run by religious groups. They haven't been in the AID's wards, primarily run by Catholic religious. They haven't been in soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Yes, many have fought in the name of religion. Man has always fought; religion has often been an excuse. Is the opposite true, that in countries with no religion, there has been no war. naaah

Agreement

You can murder tens of millions "for religion" and you can murder tens of millions "for mankind," or, for the hell of it. It is, however, particularly galling when we witness the enormity of suffering inflicted in God's name, and it would probably be a good idea to identify and avoid those features of extremist worldviews, religious or un-religious, which are good predictors of mass tragedy. One such predictor is a claim by a religious or political feature that he has full knowledge of the absolute Truth, whether in the form of relgious dogma or political ideology.

You are quite right that one must question their faith and the components of that faith. Of course! No faith not worth questioning is worth anything at all.
Of course our life is a struggle with G_d. This is the core belief of Jews and Muslims (jihad is exactly that struggle). For Chistians and Buddhist the langauge is somewhat different, but the walk, the struggle is similar. Both these faith walks talk of struggling less and allowing the Spirit within us to show through. They talk of detachment and compassion.

agreement:
We've discussed the interesting words jihad and Yisrael. While I'm at it, I'll not that Halakhah, the word for the system of law adhered to by Orthodox Jews, means "the way," a phrasing that would sound familiar to a Buddhist familiar with the "noble path."

I have listened to much of these posts. Many ar at different places in the walk. Some seem on the path of life, the pass of struggle, the path of submission, the path of detachment. Some seem lost for time. One can never judge where someone else is coming from. One cannot live in another's shoes. We can only tell other where we are, where we have been. So it is with Dungy, so it is with us all.

Finally, yes Christians and Jews do take a different interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the core meanings are not different. G_d created the heavens and earth and declared them good, He asked man to tend the garden (the first command); he created man and women in His image. We are asked to love G_d and each other. All the torah is contained in those two commands. As we know, when the mishiach (messiah) comes, He will answer the one question that divides Jews and Christians. "Is this the first time?"

Disagreement.
I'm well over the word limit. Christians and Jews disagree on a number of religious matters, whether with one another or among themselves. The very nature of the word "messiah" is not the same for the two. But I am out of words.

Whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, though, we can say objectively that Jews and Christians share a great deal of common source material.

All the rest is indeed commentary.

just my two cents

Expansion:
Don't forget, "Now, go and study."

PFnV

 

[3 to be 4]

hmmmmmm.

would it be out of line to respectfully ask that this discussion, while interesting, be continued on a new thread?

Its quite offensive to keep having to see this personal message that
"3 to be 4 will be ex-Christian eventually" bumped over and over.

the author of this thread came after me in a personal and hateful way and while some here found glee and comfort in that, I had hoped all that had died out.

unfortunately this thread found a new life and I suspect some are not too upset the thread title lives on.

i know the response "well you bring it on by your own (blah) (blah...."

but i didnt title my threads "Old Testament reasons for Grogan to accept Jesus" or "Old Testament reasons for PatsFaninVa to accept Jesus"

Thank you for your consideration.