Religion The USA, religious yes, but more Christian or Jewish ?

[lexico]

Doesn't make sense. If that god is omnipotent and omniscient, why would it have any problem "managing the proper upbringing of humans and interacting with them" ?

How can it be perfect if it is boring ? How can an omnipotent god feel unhappy or bored (if he can't use his power just to control his emotions, he is hardly omnipotent). ?

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I think we are talking under different assumptions, so let me give it another shot. "God," as a changeable and changing entity, dumped the idea of immobile perfection because there was no love in it, no glory, and nothing to accopmlish. Why so? That is a mystery. There's always at least one why that we cannot answer. If I may draw a tribalistic analogy, kids are often unpredictable...

But then again, omnipotence is such an artificial, and relative notion. Very unnatural concept. For example a yakuza head could be termed omnipotent, but it's just an expression. I'm not sure if it's a good analogy, though.

Considering the length and extent of the universe, seeing how this "god" has difficult dealing with his own creation, and was even forced to change his basic morals, is just absurd.

But it makes him more human and approachable, right?
It's actually rather amusing to imagine such a god.
Without sarcasm, it almost sounds like you, the professed atheist, are more serious about the qualities of "god," while the "true believers," so to speak, are more busy with befriending him.

There is so much more to care about than humans in the universe.

I'd have to disagree there. A death of a star may be a cosmic disaster, but don't you think something like the tsunami disaster count much, much more?
Of course, there may be more than one planet supporting intelligent beings in the universe as we know it, and god may have to worry about them, too. Can't complain about your idea then!
To overcome sibling rivalry and yield to the other is honorable indeed.

At best, in our huge (probably infinte) universe, this god looks like a 'village chief' preoccupied by trivial matters. Not a big deal to guess what kind of person might have imagined such a god - and not difficult se understand why such thinking would appeal mostly to people living in remote areas, such as the US countryside (given the very low population density, not unlike that of the Ancient Middle East, where the concept was born).

I personally have no problem with that. I'm actually happily surprised with your vivid picture of "god" as the 'village chief.' I think that would be an admirable and amicable depiction of "god."
It was actually in some kind of isolation from the busy cities that "god" first spoke to Ibrahim and Moshe.
A desert or in the mountains would be a fine place to have a good talk in private. In fact, once the wars are over, we might just learn more about the early happenings in the ancient Middle East, where the sun rose upon humanity for the first time, or was it the second? The excavations have all but stopped due to all the nasty bickerings over there. Really sad, isn't it?

 

[Maciamo]

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I think we are talking under different assumptions, so let me give it another shot. "God," as a changeable and changing entity, dumped the idea of immobile perfection because there was no love in it, no glory, and nothing to accopmlish.

That's a bit easy, don't you think ? God could have created one world that was perfect, and another with more challenges. Anyway, an omniscient and omnipotent creature could create, modify and destroy an infinity of world simultaneously without even be tired or confused. That is the idea of the monotheist god. If god actually feels emotions, love, or needs glory, entertainment, etc. it becomes like a life being, and therefore is not god anymore. It just doesn't make sense to imagine a god powerful enough to create the universe, create life, create emotions (joy, fear, sadness, misery), create concepts (glory...), create anything that exist (even itself ?), and actually need these things too. A monotheist god cannot be male, nor female, nor even alive - because it'd mean it needs to maintain itself to survive and could eventually die. And if god dies what happens to the universe (its creation) ? Does it disappear suddenly ? What is left ? No frankly, this kind of reasoning is too childish and illogical. That is why I cannot accept the idea of any god.

But then again, omnipotence is such an artificial, and relative notion. Very unnatural concept. For example a yakuza head could be termed omnipotent, but it's just an expression. I'm not sure if it's a good analogy, though.

Of course it's unnatural. Given that god created nature (the universe), omnipotence has to be beyond that. That's why we cannot think of a god as a life being (even less one with feelings).

But it makes him more human and approachable, right?
It's actually rather amusing to imagine such a god.
Without sarcasm, it almost sounds like you, the professed atheist, are more serious about the qualities of "god," while the "true believers," so to speak, are more busy with befriending him.

Most humans are intellectually immature and lazy. The brain consumes a disproportionately big part of the energy of the body. To think efficiently about such abstract concepts as god, one must have been raised with a proper nutrition and possess sufficient innate analytical and logical skills. Therefore it is unsurprising that people coming from poorer countries or social backgrounds have a much lower chance of attaining the necessary intellectual skills and energy to think clearly about metaphysics. Even then, motivation and the right education to think critically is not guaranteed.

I'd have to disagree there. A death of a star may be a cosmic disaster, but don't you think something like the tsunami disaster count much, much more?
Of course, there may be more than one planet supporting intelligent beings in the universe as we know it, and god may have to worry about them, too. Can't complain about your idea then!

I do not suppose that we are the only "intelligent" (it's all relative, as we may be absolutely primitive by another species' standard) in the uinverse. It's almost as unlikely as for the universe to be finite.

 

[lexico]

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for the disrruption that my comments have aroused. If you think we should rather return to the original discussion, that is fine with me. I would hate to drag you into this line of discussion which has obviously gone off in a tangent. Unless you want to continue of course. :49:

If god actually feels emotions, love, or needs glory, entertainment, etc. it becomes like a life being, and therefore is not god anymore.

It just doesn't make sense to imagine a god powerful enough to create the universe, create life, create emotions (joy, fear, sadness, misery), create concepts (glory...), create anything that exist (even itself ?), and actually need these things too.

A monotheist god cannot be male, nor female, nor even alive - because it'd mean it needs to maintain itself to survive and could eventually die. And if god dies what happens to the universe (its creation) ? Does it disappear suddenly ? What is left ? No frankly, this kind of reasoning is too childish and illogical. That is why I cannot accept the idea of any god.

Of course it's unnatural. Given that god created nature (the universe), omnipotence has to be beyond that. That's why we cannot think of a god as a life being (even less one with feelings).

May I ask where you got that idea? Would you rather have a dead god than living? :20: I am probably pushing it in a direction you have not intended, and most certainly out of your context, but I can't help asking you the question.

Let me generalize, if that's permitted. Where do people get this notion of god that is so magnanimous that he can't even breathe, or feel, of suffer, or work for a goal? These are all strong qualities that both the OT and the NT have been emphasizing all over the 66 Christian canons. By the way, as characterized by one fellow chirstian, all 66 books have all different testimonies of god as the writers experienced god.

Many midieval philophers have argued this and argued that about god, but these have no precedence over what's in the biblical texts. Some are extensions, some are reorganizations, and some are blatant assumptions based on skewed and exaggerated interpretations of phrases and words taken out of context; the main context being faith and spirituality. :argue:

What might help you to "understand" --acknowledge would be a better word-- the logical perplexity is that what we have in the 66 books have roots in the Levantine cultures of the post neolitic revolution. The ideas, or rather locutions, that you find in the 66 books are first and foremost stories.

The early mythologies of the ancient cultures are basically stories that have been told for milenia. Understanding the surface meaning of these stories or personal accounts are different from the way we understand a mathematical equation. If one seeks deep into the meaning of existence, or even a simple story or sentence, there lies but a deep, dark abyss of nothingness. :44:

The nothingness, as the basis of our existence, has undoubtedly perplexed the ancients as much as it has modern agnosts or atheists. The human condition has seen no fundamental change, regardless of the advancement of material civilization and scientific studies. These stories are about the mysteries of existence.

If it worked for them, that is good. If it doesn't work for you, nobody can stop you from finding a better version. If you can, that would actually be a great service for those who need a better story or rationalization.

Most humans are intellectually immature and lazy. The brain consumes a disproportionately big part of the energy of the body. To think efficiently about such abstract concepts as god, one must have been raised with a proper nutrition and possess sufficient innate analytical and logical skills. Therefore it is unsurprising that people coming from poorer countries or social backgrounds have a much lower chance of attaining the necessary intellectual skills and energy to think clearly about metaphysics. Even then, motivation and the right education to think critically is not guaranteed.

It is good that we finally have someone armed with the best tools and training, of the right calibre and ammunition (forgive my military metaphore) to figure out the age-old mysteries. :gun:

As long as it is not another variety of small-scale pseudo-science that fails in scope. I have not heard your positive version of divinity or cosmology of human existence, only an argument against its impossibility. So I would be more that glad, over-joyed actually, to hear yours if you are willing.

In fact, since I have argued for the evolving model of god, I can almost say that it is about time that someone came up with an irrefutable and all-encompassing theology, faith, and spirituality from the pinnacle of human civilization. I just hope it is not a group of arguments aimed at the destruction of old logic, without properly providing a better and worthy substitute. That would be irresponsible, wouldn't it?

I do not suppose that we are the only "intelligent" (it's all relative, as we may be absolutely primitive by another species' standard) in the uinverse. It's almost as unlikely as for the universe to be finite.

That sure is a possibilty I do not ignore. SETI might enlighten us on that at some point in the future, maybe? I have heard of the two contending theories of cosmic generation. :kaioken: :smash: The last I have heard to be the winning party was that the universe is finite with a finite mass. Of course scientific knowledge is by definiton, and also from historical observation, always reborn out of its ashes, so I may be misinformed about the latest theory.
Nevertheless, your argument for other, and more advanced, forms of intelligent existence is sustained even in a finite universe. A rather big one, that is. :biggrin:

 

[lexico]

Back to the Origin

I take your silence as an act of choice from the options I have offered, and that is fine. I understand that deep philosophical debate was not your intention to begin with, so no harm done.

Your original thesis makes some broad genralizations as Shooter452 pointed out. But I will not mind that either. Your approach is actually quite effective when you want some active discussion going. In fact, scienctific theory, in a broad sense of the word, is to present a group of "ASSUMPTIONS AND STATEMENTS" that are open to refutation; otherwise it would cease to be science, but become dogma.

Instead of going after the whole of your thesis, this time I will try to bite nips off piecemeal to see if that interests anyone. What's a juicy portion now......Yes, the first paragraph. Church attendance.

From what I've read, observed, and interviewed, although not as a sociologist, the main difference in Church attendance between the US and some Western Eruopean countries is purely accidental, and hence not a good measure of religiosity of the repsective regions.

While almost all of Western Europe was involved in two major international conflicts in the 20th century, the US mainlanders were spared of any war situation in the homeland. When the able male members left for the battle ground and came back, the family was protected from physical and psychological violence. Even when the family lost the loved one in the war abroad, he was flown back home for a fine funeral where he was embraced into the arms of the church and community who were grateful for the sacrifice they had to bear.

While Americans were in the comfort zone, Europeans lost a great portion of their industry, architecture, communal bonds, church support, and faith in the old established world they inherited. Adding to the fact that many churches were ambivalent in the occupied regions towards acts of violence and genocidal crimes, isn't it only natural that Europeans born into christian families break away from an incompetent and dead church?

Add to this the growing number of secular theologians who lack the proper philosophical and analytical training, and deprived of a chance to adequately place the research results of textual criticism in their proper place within the belief system, it is nothing surprising that Europeans could find little reason to return to the church.

Therefore employing Church attendance statistics to assess degree of religoisity in Europe and the US is quite flawed and unsupported in your argument.

 

[Maciamo]

May I ask where you got that idea? Would you rather have a dead god than living?

My point is that any life beings die one day, because that is included in the definition of life itself. Life without death is not life. I also do not believe in an eternal soul or any soul at all. We can explain life with science, and all our emotions with neuropsychology, etc. Life is merely a very intricated series of chemical reactions. It may to too hard for most of us humans to understand all its mechanism, as it would require a lot of advanced (and accurate) scientific knowledge, in addition to excellent intellectual skills and a lot of imagination. It is not impossible but very energy consuming and psychologically demanding, believe me. Let me recommend this book on the subject : Descartes' error, by the prominent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio.

Otherwise, I have already shared some of my views about god and the soul in these threads :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12083

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3057

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11073&page=3&pp=40

 

[lexico]

Sidetracking again, but still good line of discussion...

My point is that any life beings die one day, because that is included in the definition of life itself. Life without death is not life.

Well put, Maciamo, but still medieval logic. You are following the classical Aristotelian syllogism p & q -> r where

p: All life forms die.
q: But you (lexico) say that God is living. Which must mean that God is a life being.
r: Therefore God must also die.

Evaluation: Something is wrong with the logic presented.
Your (Maciamo's) point: q is false: God is not a life being as you (lexico) claim.
My (lexico's) point: (p & q) is in question. Not q alone. p is an ill-supported statement.

To illustrate this, let me ask you this. How do we know that all life forms die? From observing the big ones, that might appear to be the case. But let me offer just one counter example which should suffice to prove my point from the principles of rigorous logic. The amoeba reproduces both sexually and a-sexually. The a-sexual reproduction involves the simple (from a macroscopic viewpoint) splitting of all vital cellular components.

This amoeba never dies unless it faces a fatal condition that brings its life function to an end. In fact, all amoebae alive today are as old as the species itself. The identity of the idividual (I know this is contradictory, because they keep splitting, but for lack of a better word. How about entity?), of course, may be a little difficult to establish, nevertheless it/they/the species has/have enjoyed "eternal life" as far as scientists can tell.

I also do not believe in an eternal soul or any soul at all.

Again in the history of Judeo-Chritian philosophies, the notion of the "eternal soul" as a universal concept is a relatively new development roughly falling in the period between the OT and the NT texts. There were many Hebrew sects at that time, all differing in the details of beliefs, a few examples of which I will list fyi.

1. Saduccees: no providence (no interference), no eternal life (death of the soul, sheol, no heaven), no angels, no final judgement (retribution in present life), denial of oral tradition but emphasis on Jerusalem and the Pentateuch

2. Pharisees: providence, free will, angels, Kingdom, judgement, resurrection, eternal life, oral tradition on top of Pentateuch

3. Essenes: dualism of good and evil, eternal life, angels, messianism, impending final judgement & armageddon (holy war), resurrection, heaven and hell, denied ritual emphasis on Jerusalem, asceticism

Also eixisted the following, though less well-understood.

4. Galileans: mentioned in letter by Bar Kochba fl. 132-135

5. the Baptists and Hemero-Baptists

6. Meristas

7. the Hellenists

The notion of 'soul' is widely misunderstood in modern language and I regret your usage fall into the same trap. Perhaps we should dig the classical texts when discussing these matters with any genuine seriousness. But to cut the chase 'soul' should properly include both the body and the soul, not like the Greek dualism of mutually exclusive mind and body. A close reading of the classical texts in the original languages, or even of a good translation with adequate foot notes should guide us to a more historically accurate understanding of the Hebrew notion of the 'soul.'

We can explain life with science, and all our emotions with neuropsychology, etc. Life is merely a very intricated series of chemical reactions.

Reductionism that I can totally agree with. The facts and methods of chemical evolution, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience should, in principle, be able to explain all the mechanisms that lead up to the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens and those phenomena observed in humans either externally or internally. Scientific philosophy has the potential to be a fullfledged & consistent thought system that is mathematically homogenous with alternate full-descriptions of the universe including life and man. It's all in the making bty.

It may to too hard for most of us humans to understand all its mechanism, as it would require a lot of advanced (and accurate) scientific knowledge, in addition to excellent intellectual skills and a lot of imagination.

Not so difficult if you think about it. I regret your rather low view of people's capacity of reasoning which is in principle innate to all homo spiens sapiens beings. Please don't prejudge all of humanity just because some have been more obstinate to open their eyes to what has been happening around them.

It is not impossible but very energy consuming and psychologically demanding, believe me. Let me recommend this book on the subject : Descartes' error, by the prominent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio.

I've only read the reviews in the link you provided, but I had arrived at an identical conclusion with my own scientific hypothesizing and verification in the 1970's. But yes, he does seem to draw very interesting examples to support his thesis which I think are quite valuable. I will read up on it, and tell you if there is anything new that I can find in his logic. But first I must get a copy of the book!

Otherwise, I have already shared some of my views about god and the soul in these threads :
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12083
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3057
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11073&page=3&pp=40

As a relatively new member to JREF, allow me some time to absorb all the past debates that you kindly offered here, thank you.

 

[Maciamo]

To illustrate this, let me ask you this. How do we know that all life forms die? From observing the big ones, that might appear to be the case. But let me offer just one counter example which should suffice to prove my point from the principles of rigorous logic. The amoeba reproduces both sexually and a-sexually. The a-sexual reproduction involves the simple (from a macroscopic viewpoint) splitting of all vital cellular components.

Did I ever say that life had to die of "old age" necessarily ? The point is that even if one day our scientific knowledge is such that we can cure all diseases and stay young forever, any life being can still die from external causes. What if an asteroid collides with the earth and detroy all life there ? My point is that however well protected and cared for it may be, there is always a way to destroy life.

What is more, as life needs a beginning (a "birth" or creation from inert matter), assuming that god is a life being means that god was "born" from inert matter, and therefore could not have created the universe. But the best argument I have against a "god" creating the universe, is that if god is part (or whole) of the universe, this god could not create itself from a state of non-existence. If God is not "in" the universe, then it does not exist, as per definition the universe is everything that exist. Another word for "universe" is "reality". If god is not "in the universe" it is not real. I don't believe in multiple "dimensions" as my definition of universe (the one you should consider to understand me) is that the universe is "everything that exist" (even in our imagination, or including parallel worlds/dimensions or whatever). We could also say that god could not "create reality" without failing to be real itself.

The notion of 'soul' is widely misunderstood in modern language and I regret your usage fall into the same trap. Perhaps we should dig the classical texts when discussing these matters with any genuine seriousness. But to cut the chase 'soul' should properly include both the body and the soul, not like the Greek dualism of mutually exclusive mind and body.

OK. That is your definition. I think it is very difficult to talk about the "soul", "universe" or "god" because we all have different definitions. My definition of "soul" is that commonly accepted in the English language (the first meaning listed in my Oxford dictionary is "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human, regarded as immortal")

For me the "mind" is part and parcel of the body. Everything is in the brain (and nervous system) and can be explained as a biochemical process. I do not believe in an "immaterial soul/spirit", as I consider that energy is a form of matter, and in my belief everything in the universe is matter and energy (the so-called "materialism" in philosophy).

Scientific philosophy has the potential to be a fullfledged & consistent thought system that is mathematically homogenous with alternate full-descriptions of the universe including life and man.

I have to disagree here. Philosophy makes use of sciences and maths, but it is much more than that. Epistemology for example can "judge" and "control" or use of sciences/maths to understand the universe. It is above sciences/maths. Philosophy encompasses all these things (epistemology, logics, metaphysics, siences, maths, psychology, religion, history, linguistics, etc.). One cannot be a good philosopher without an solid knowledge of all these fields.

I regret your rather low view of people's capacity of reasoning which is in principle innate to all homo spiens sapiens beings.

Are you saying that all humans have the same intellectual (including artistic, linguistic, emotional...) abilities ? I believe that at the contrary each human is unique in its capabilities. People are not born equal. Everybody is born with a different brain (shape, size, number of neurons...) and a different sensitivity. But were all people even born the same, their experience since birth being unique, they cannot possibly develop the exact same capabilities.

 

[babar-san]

well well, a subject i finally feel intrigued enough to get involved with, since im american an all, i have an objective opinion id like to share with the outside world. i have not read all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if i point something out that has already been explained.

i live in the south, east tennessee to be exact, and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what ppl actually believe. the majority of the bible belt is christian, no doubt, but mainly just the older generations. the concept today held closest by my generation and those younger than me, is a balance of scientific fact, biblical fact (yes there is such a thing), and common sense. the general idea is that we should follow the ideals set forth in the words of jesus christ. many of us here in the south have recognized that the roman catholic church has employed some of the most brilliant minds in science to study the universe. wtf? yes, its true, within the last 2 decades, the roman catholic church has made steps toward balancing the faith with the known.

the united states belief structure is a very secular one. there are so many different groups and churches based around specifics in the bible that is almost impossible to put them in the same group under the term, "christian".
many of them practice christian fundamentals, sadly, some of them are fundamentalists and take things beyond context. but for the most part, you will hear "jesus" come out of their mouths more than once in a sentence. meaning, that most christians here believe firmly in the new testament, and its ideals, obviously. most do still adhear to the fire and brimstone rhetoric of the old testament, but practice new testament iideals, seems we have a conundrum. a lot of "christians" today have a vague concept of what christianity really is, and therefore, mix the 2 together into some kind of amalgamation of the 2.

so basically, you have the older fire and brimstone age group, that still believes in christ, yet are quik to say you'll burn in hell if you commit deadly siins, and then the more enlightened, younger generations that have a more common sense approuch to the teachings of christ, and the metaphoric nature of the bible. seeing christ as more of a buddha figure than the be all end all. in modern christianity, you do not go to hell for a deadly sin, as long as youve made peace with crist, and asked for his forgiveness. after all, that was his purpose here, according to the bible. he loved mankind so much, he gave his life, covering us with his pure and holy blood, so that god could look upon us again, and see no sin, so that mankind could once again enter his kingdom.

as far as creationism is concerned, as maciamo has pointed out, is taught in some schools, mostly private institutions. in public schools however, religion is not allowed, not even here in the "bible belt". they tried adding "prayer" time in our schools down here a few years back, and thank god, it was squashed promptly by the school board, then enforced by the national education society, and pta.

it doesnt take a great mind to understand that the concept of the world and the stars and everything in-between being created in 7 days is an impossibility by sciences' standards, and even when the "one day to god is as a thousand years to man" is quoted from the bible, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that there were thriving civilizations 7000 years ago, and beyond. proof that the ideal of the world being created in 7 days is simply not correct.

while there is a large jewish population here in the states, it can be said with all fairness that while secular christians and jews dont agree on the new testament and christ, they share a common place on the faith scale, they believe in god, and so do christians. the same god from the old testament. the same god that the hindi call krishna, the muslims call allah, the jews call yah-wey, and anchient egyptians called thoth. the bible is simply a new look at god, and it activities. so, that being said, its no supprise that the united states has an intimate relationship with isreal, they are arguably the only country in the middle east that practices the faith system based around the ideals of the old testament. close enough for us i guess.

the fact remains, yashua, joshua, or christ if you will, was a real person, he walked the earth as a man. whether or not he was the son of god is still in dispute, by every major religion. but history is history. he was put on a cross, and executed, as a man.

whitch brings me to my last rant, my personal beliefs. these are for objective reasons only. i do believe in god, but i do not believe that it is a man or a woman, i do not think its purpose is to "judge" us. i believe god is an "it". something that human beings could never possibly understand. obviously, because of history, i believe that christ was a real person. whether or not he was the son of god makes no differece to me. his "ideals" were of such profound insight, that his teachings should be recognized for what they were.
love. his impact on the way we think today was so important simply because of the compassion he had for his fellow man. this is very evident in the fact that he was praying for the souls that put him on the cross, right up until his death at the tip of a spear. "forgive them father, for they know not what they do". you show me any human being that can endure that much torture, that much pain, inflicted by the very ppl he was trying to save, and pray for their salvation up to the minute of his/her death, and i might feel differently.
until then, i think god created the universe, i think science can explain it, beyond that, i have nothing further to add.

 

[Maciamo]

Thanks for sharing this with us babar-san.

the same god from the old testament. the same god that the hindi call krishna, the muslims call allah, the jews call yah-wey, and anchient egyptians called thoth. the bible is simply a new look at god, and it activities.

I don't think Hindus would make any parallel between an almighty monotheistic god and one of their thousands (if not millions) or gods. Krishna is actually one of the 10 avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu, the god "protector of the universe" (keeping the status-quo), as opposed to Shiva the destructor (bringing change), or Brahma, the creator of the universe. I also don't see any relation with Thot, the god of the moon, wisdom, writing and magic. The ancient Egyptians had a kind of almighty god named Amon-Ra, the sun god. But only one out of many, again.

i do believe in god, but i do not believe that it is a man or a woman, i do not think its purpose is to "judge" us. i believe god is an "it". something that human beings could never possibly understand.

Then you are not a Christian but a Deist, like Thomas Jefferson or J-J Rousseau.

you show me any human being that can endure that much torture, that much pain, inflicted by the very ppl he was trying to save, and pray for their salvation up to the minute of his/her death, and i might feel differently.

There has been many other cases. I mean, Jesus was not so badly tortured. He only had his hands and feet nailed. There has been many people who tried to immitate him, and still do (eg. in the Philippines - saw that in the news). If just any crazy enough devotee can do that in our times, imagine what it must have been when torture was part of everyday life - like in the Middle Ages or Renaissance when people were quartered, burned alive, lapidated, mutilated or wahtever for being an heretic or protestant. These people have endured much worse suffering than the Christ, and some of them might also have said or thought "god forgive them for they don't know what they do", as they were convinced in the rightfulness of their faith (so much as to die for it, when they could have lied to the church and said they believed in the same Catholic Christianity as everybody else). I would certainly not take Jesus' crucifixion as a "proof" of anything. If god had intervened and punished those who wanted to kill him or spoken from teh sky or something, I would understand better that people consider it supernatural enough to believe in.

 

[Anat]

Well, I'm Jewish and I too am amazed sometimes at how religious Americans are. Most of the Jews in Israel are totally secular with a high percentage of atheists. Thing is to be Jewish doesn't necessary mean any form of belief in the old testament.

I think that this was not the main point of your post, but still this is something I wanted to comment about. Being Jewish to me is first of all a national identity. To me it's belonging to an ancient ethnic group that was dispersed into exile from its country some 2000 years ago by the Romans. Whether or not you believe in God has little to do with it.

I don't think America automatically supports Israel on any issue, and whatever support it does grant it pretty much out of pure American interests (as it should be). And yes, being a democratic country with a large military in an area of strategic importance to the US means we have many joint interests.

Just my two cents... (no pun intended )

 

[bossel]

I think that this was not the main point of your post, but still this is something I wanted to comment about. Being Jewish to me is first of all a national identity. To me it's belonging to an ancient ethnic group that was dispersed into exile from its country some 2000 years ago by the Romans. Whether or not you believe in God has little to do with it.

Welcome to the forum, Anat! This is off topic but nevertheless interesting: Jewish as a national identity. I can't really understand this concept. Does that mean that for you "Jewish" is a synonym of "Israeli"? I never thought of it that way (to me Jewish is simply a religious designation). This would make all the Jews outside Israel expats. What about the non-Jewish Israelis (quite a number)? I wonder, how these 2 groups fit into your concept of national identity. Furthermore, I would like to know how widespread this concept is in Israel.

I don't think America automatically supports Israel on any issue, and whatever support it does grant it pretty much out of pure American interests (as it should be).

Hmm, I tend to disagree. It sure looks like the US is supporting Israel almost unconditionally. There maybe some strategic interest involved, but that can't really explain everything.

 

[Anat]

Our national identity, as Jews and Israelis is certainly complex and not everyone agrees on it.

Judaism is both a religion and a nationality. Most people here will agree on the following -

You can't be of a different religion if you define yourself as Jewish. You can be secular (and most are) and you can be an atheist (not believe in the existence of God), but you can't be a Christian or a Muslim if you're Jewish. Most Jews, even the secular and atheists celebrate the holidays - more of a cultural/traditional thing.

You can be an Israeli without being Jewish. 20% of the population are. An Israeli is anyone with an Israeli ID citizenship. He/she can be Jewish, Chirstian, Muslim - doesn't matter. They can also be of different nationalities. They can be Israelis and Arabs and even Palestinians at the same time (confusing, I know).

You can definitely be Jewish without being an Israeli. You can be Jewish without even supporting Israel. You're Jewish if you belong to the Jewish people, either by being born into it (from the mother's side) or by converting into Judaism. I know this is tricky, because converting into Judaism means you need to practice the religious aspects, but this is really just so you get yourself familiar with the cultural aspects, the holidays etc. After you convert and are considered Jewish, you can stop practicing it as a religion.

Mind you there are different sects in Judaism too. Most of what I said here is true in Israel where almost every Jewish person is defined as Orthodox Jew by birth (even the secular and atheists ones )

Wow, having written it down, it does sound confusing. See, and I thought the Japanese cultural structure was complicated

 

[sabrin]

I have been reading through this and I'm finding these ideas to be quite interesting. The majority of my friends are Christain and they use the NT. They groan when I argue with them and make them go to the OT.

Yes, they did teach creationalism at my school. I don't know if they still do or not though. Yes, it is a public school, but all of the teachers are Christian and so are the majority of the students, so, noone would listen.

I myself am not Christian, but am instead a neo-pagan. This normally angers people when they find out, but they eventually find it fitting to me. I personally wish that my government would just forget that their leader is a certain religion and open their ears.