Don't you love Jesus?

[Gurm]

I am an Atheist. It's not hard to explain to me you believe in a creator actually. Trying to base such belief on logic however is like.... explaining to a dog that the indians HAVE to eat pigs.

No, not really. It's that you have decided that ANY belief in a higher power is "conjecture", and therefore you refuse to admit that it's possible to base logical discourse on it.

A dog doesn't believe that life is possible without chasing the ball.

[Umfriend]

No, not really. It's that you have decided that ANY belief in a higher power is "conjecture", and therefore you refuse to admit that it's possible to base logical discourse on it.

A dog doesn't believe that life is possible without chasing the ball.

I think this is wrong on two accounts:

I have not decided, nor do I believe, that any belief in a higher power is "conjecture" as conjecture requires evidence, incomplete evidence, but evidence nonetheless. All I am saying is that the fact that you (and I and anyone else) fail to understand all we experience without the existence of a God (which we do not understand) is not evidence at all and thus not the basis of conjecture, let alone proof or logic. Speculation maybe, that's something else. Give me evidence, even cirucmstancial, and I'll consider it.

The second issue is this: I do believe logical disourse is possible based on any, or "a", belief in a higher power. Given any set of axioms, it is likely one could have a logical discourse (sounds like fun!). But if the axioms are not realistic (or false), the discourse may not be, well, relevant (aside from providing good fun, training discourse etc).

The things is, you said you believed (at least in part so I assume) based on "logic". I fail to see any logic leading to belief.

[Gurm]

PLACEHOLDER FOR REPLY - First need to make sure I understand what "conjecture" means.

"Guess".

You think that any belief in a creative, extra-universal entity is just a guess or a piece of fantasy. Therefore you can't accept that any logical argument can come from it. That's ok, but it makes discussing religion difficult, since the PREMISE of religion is the acceptance of that "guess" as a tenet.

[schmosef]

PLACEHOLDER FOR REPLY - First need to make sure I understand what "conjecture" means.

roflmao!

btw, I would agree that we don't have logical tools to prove the existence of God. We simply don't know enough about the universe yet. One day we might, or maybe not. That's one of the mysteries of life. It doesn't bother me.

[Gurm]

roflmao!

btw, I would agree that we don't have logical tool to prove the existence of God. We simply don't know enough about the universe yet. One day we might, or maybe not. That's one of the mysteries of life. It doesn't bother me.

Bingo!

Instead of saying "I have no idea how the universe came to be, and after we die we're just gone and there is nothing"... which seems pretty bleak, and makes our existence pretty futile, and leads to astonishing hedonism... I choose to accept that maybe there's a creator, maybe there's a meaning. Maybe not too, but it's better to think there might be than to think there isn't and be COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ALONE.

[schmosef]

schmo, I'm not worried about your motives, rather the tone of your comments and how it may sound others. Numerous times I made mention that said tone might very well have not been intended.

My irritation, if you will, has arised from several posts explaining the Christian view (at least one of them) on graven images and the involvment of Santa in the Christmas celebration, being largely ignored in your posts. I doubt it was intentional and was likely a result of the varying levels of detail in the number of posts, as well as you're attempting to reconcile or compare Christian beliefs with those of Judaism.

The problem, as has been stated, is that Christianity is a far more diverse religion than most others in terms of the differing beliefs and practices of the various sects. It has been used as a tool for control and oppression throughout modern history, and is so far removed from Christianity of Jesus' time and shortly thereafter, not ignoring the fact that while Jesus was alive, Christianity was still Judaism.

I respect your beliefs and your attempt to understand those of another religion, but I've always felt that when you have much faith vested in your religion, it is harder to fully comprehend (not intellectually mind you) the beliefs of another. I've tried to offer some insight into some of the Christian beliefs, but I've seemingly failed to explain them comprehensively, based on your having continued to ask the same questions when they'd already been answered. I think as a whole, however, that the beliefs in question have been thoroughly explained by the postings as a whole. No one's beliefs will be changed here, but there comes a point when you have to accept that these are their beliefs and these are yours.

I never once was trying to reconcile our two religions. Only seeking to understand Christian interpretation of commandment #2.

At first I thought that there might be gross ubiquitous violation going on.

Then I was led to believe that Christians essentially believe in a "not withstanding clause". In that despite the possibility to confuse the image, Christians don't (or aren't supposed to) make that mistake (even though I know that they do) so God is cool with the veneration of Saints, etc. And I mentioned that this is interesting in that it is a contradictory interpretation of the Commandment as far as Judaism is concerned; specifically because it doesn't seem to address the "jealous" nature of God. To be clear, Jews don't believe that God is actually jealous per say. We believe the term is kind of a short form for a whole bunch of issues that I'm not going to get into now.

That comparison btw was not an attempt to value judge or reconcile. Just contrast for the sake of edification.

Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, I've now read some links that say classical Jewish interpretation of Commandment #2 wasn't as strict as modern Jews tend to think because God did instruct for Moses to have the Cherubim placed on the ark and also the construction of the Bronze Serpent, which was only destroyed when it started to be misused.

So far, via Google, I've not found anything that feels rights to me in terms of reconciling the apparent contradiction in Jewish interpretation of Commandment #2. I'm going to ask some people more scholarly than myself and will post on this subject some time in the future.

The thread has now spiralled into a debate that doesn't interest me so much. I don't seek to prove the existence of God nor wish to "convert" others to my view, so I'll leave the bulk of the debate to others, but reserve the right to comment here and there.

[Umfriend]

Well, your first post is handled in the placeholder. Yes, the life of us atheists is hard...

I find the consideration to believe because it is "better than to be completely and utterly alone" very understandable, perhaps even logical.

[Umfriend]

Sorry Schmo, really did not try to hiyack the thread. If Gurm just stated that his belief was irrational from the start I'd not have gotten into this at all.

I actually have very strong feelings about idolatry ROFLMAO!

[schmosef]

I have not decided, nor do I believe, that any belief in a higher power is "conjecture" as conjecture requires evidence, incomplete evidence, but evidence nonetheless. All I am saying is that the fact that you (and I and anyone else) fail to understand all we experience without the existence of a God (which we do not understand) is not evidence at all and thus not the basis of conjecture, let alone proof or logic. Speculation maybe, that's something else. Give me evidence, even cirucmstancial, and I'll consider it.

Yeah so for me the evidence is honestly an overwhelming sense of Ruah HaQodesh. To deny it would be like denying that the sky is blue or that Kathy Ireland's eyes are green.

Umm... Kathy Ireland... I think I must have made a false idol of her when I was a teenager.

[schmosef]

Sorry Schmo, really did not try to hiyack the thread. If Gurm just stated that his belief was irrational from the start I'd not have gotten into this at all.

I actually have very strong feelings about idolatry ROFLMAO!

There's no real apology necessary. I think that the first discussion has run it's course anyway.

[schmosef]

And, for Schmo, praying to saints is not elevating saints to a God-like status. They are intercessionary, just as a priest is. It is an established hierarchy, in some churches, that the peasant cannot pray directly to God; he asks the priest to intercede (such as during confession etc.). He can also superstitiously pray to those who have died and whom he believes are in heaven (i.e., saints) to have a word on his behalf in God's ear. In these churches, generally, only priests can administer the sacraments. In churches of Zwinglian and Calvanist character, to a lesser extent Lutheran and to a still lesser extent, Anglican, any believer can administer them and can pray directly to God, without intercessions by priest or saint. Yes, most of them have ministers whose role is one of guidance, by long training, and who generally administer the sacraments, but they are NOT priests and they have no exclusive functions; they are pastors. Having, at one time, been ordained myself as a deacon of the Presbyterian Church, I could have conducted religious services, including sacraments, (I've done neither) but I have actually spoken from the pulpit, as could any member of the congregation.

First of all, thanks for your post Brian. I may not tell you too often but I enjoy reading your perspective on things, even when I disagree. You've led an interesting life.

I understand exactly what you're saying about veneration of Saints not necessarily elevating them to God-like stature.

My questions were about the checks and balances for that. In Judaism, the accepted check and balance is to rule out intercession completely so as not to confuse the power of the "interceder".

I'm still not clear on what the checks and balances are for Christianity.

According to what this thread has taught me, Christians don't make the mistake, or if they do it's the meaning that's more important than the action, so a check and balance isn't necessary.

Like I said, I don't see how that resolves the "jealous" aspect of the commandment, but I'm happy that I now know the Christian take on the issue.

If you have more thoughts on this subject, I'd be happy to read them.

[Umfriend]

FCOL, three happy slapping hippo's in a row, that just TO MUCH!

Yeah so for me the evidence is honestly an overwhelming sense of Ruah HaQodesh.

Which is something I readily accept as a good reason to believe in God.
Surprised anyone?

[schmosef]

Umm... Kathy Ireland...

[Nowhere]

...
According to what this thread has taught me, Christians don't make the mistake, or if they do it's the meaning that's more important than the action, so a check and balance isn't necessary.

Like I said, I don't see how that resolves the "jealous" aspect of the commandment, but I'm happy that I now know the Christian take on the issue.

If you have more thoughts on this subject, I'd be happy to read them.

Continuing somehow on what I've said earlier, if a place is less secular, it makes this mistake more often.
I suppose God doesn't have place where religion is a way of living...

[Nowhere]

Umm... Kathy Ireland...

Hmmm...funny, one of our "cult" songs, goes something like "...that I love like Ireland"