Secular humanism has been mentioned in our exchanges. Sometimes it is described accurately sometime not. It is not the same as atheism. Secular humanists are atheists but are more than merely atheists. Although secular humanists have no official creed one can state the following positions which almost all secular humanists would agree with.

Secular humanism:

1. Rejects ideas of a creator god, believed by some to control human life and answer prayers.
2. Holds that a person has only one life, since the evidence for personal existence before conception or after death is totally unconvincing.
3. Considers that morality comes from the conscience and values of the community rather than any divine source.
4. Considers that science provides a more authentic understanding about the origin and nature of the universe than that found in ancient scriptures.
5. Re-examines knowledge and ideas continually, to achieve ways of improving the living conditions of humanity and the world environment.
6. Tries to maintain an open mind, recognising that human knowledge is never the final answer, and are prepared to live with uncertainty and accept that we may be wrong.

I consider the above positions more reasonable than any supernatural mumbo-jumbo. How do you feel about them?

david f,
i would include with 1.
that secular humanism:
accepts the mythology of a creator god
as a repository of knowledge.

Davidf

1. Rejects ideas of a creator god, believed by some to control human life and answer prayers.

The fantasy of evolution takes a lot more faith than believing that creation points to a Creator.

2. Holds that a person has only one life, since the evidence for personal existence before conception or after death is totally unconvincing.

Won't help having this belief if you end up in hell.

3. Considers that morality comes from the conscience and values of the community rather than any divine source.

So if your conscience says paedophille is okay then so be it. This is exactly what happens in some communities

4. Considers that science provides a more authentic understanding about the origin and nature of the universe than that found in ancient scriptures.

True science confirms the Scriptures. Any fool knows we did not come from monkeys. We are awaiting the next fraudulent 'missing link'. Don't hold your breath.

5. Re-examines knowledge and ideas continually, to achieve ways of improving the living conditions of humanity and the world environment.

The fruit of secularism has done more harm than good to society. Fatherless kids, numerous amounts of slaughtering the unborn and perverted behaviour are all fruits of secularism. The track record for improvement to human life by secularist is atrocious.

6. Tries to maintain an open mind, recognising that human knowledge is never the final answer, and are prepared to live with uncertainty and accept that we may be wrong.

Human secularism holds as many if not more dogmas than most religions. Look at the laughable global warming dogmas being espoused. A few years ago it was global cooling. Secularism has a track record of dogmas no matter how destructive they are.

davidf
I indeed define myself as a secular humanist. You seem to have some concerns with my practical application or the this Philosophy.
Just as a point of differentiation SH do not define themselves as atheists or a subset there of. As you know we share some of the same views but there are clear if somewhat nuanced differences.

I do remember having a similar discussion some time back with the president/founder of the Aust Atheists Foundation.
At the time the difference in first hand experiences with shamanistic cultures (PNG) emphasized the differences in our two philosophies.

Runner,
Sorry old son the topic is about secular Humanism not SH V your brand of Religion.

runner

1.The belief in evolution requires a lot more rationality and reason than the fantasy that is creationism.

2.One of my greatest regrets is that if I am right no one will know. If I bump into you in hell runner be sure to gloat wont you.

3.What communities? Those phsycho godbothering cults in the US maybe? Hardly "the community" are they. I think David was referring to the majority of the community not just some nutjob priests or weird koolaid drinkers. No one with a conscience thinks pedophilia is ok.

4.What rubbish. True science has nothing to do with any "scriptures". It relys on reproducable and testable arguments which is far more than can be said for religion. True science ignores you godbotherers and your scriptures as the crazy ranters you are.

5.What like the fruits of superstition and faith. The wars, the torture, the murders, the theft, the crusades, the inquisition, the witch burnings, the middle east, northern ireland, kashmir, bosnia, gaza, 9-11, the klan, backyard abortions, ignorance, impeding science and progress, gallileo, intolerance and persecution of homosexuals and others, bigotry and elitism, I could go on forever but im running out of words allowed.

6.Godbotherers are in no position to argue nor accuse others of dogma. As you are so fond of your scriptures heres a quote. Look to the mote in thine own eye.

I think secularism is very much what David f stated and would add that secularists dont have any problem with whatever you want to believe as long as you keep it to yourself and dont try to force your views on other people. Secularists believe in total freedom as long as it harms no other people. And that includes twisting their minds with lies and airy fairy superfriends in the sky that hold sway over all we are and all we do.

Dear Examinator,

The source for my 6 positions of humanism is Max Wallace who is the Director of the Australia New Zealand National Secular Association. His book, The Purple Economy: supernatural charities, tax and the state, was published December 2007. He is an online opinion author. He spoke before the Humanist Association of Queensland, and there was no disagreement expressed with his six points. All the secular humanists that I have discussed the subject with have told me they considered themselves atheists.

I did not have you in mind when I posted this string, but I would very much like to hear more about your practical application of this philosophy.

Dear Whistler,

Where do you get your idea that secular humanism accepts the mythology of a creator god as a repository of knowledge? That is not my understanding of secular humanism.

Dear runner,

Take two aspirins, and call me in the morning.

Davidf,

My paranoia most of the discussions tend to be focused on left or right. My constant reference to perspective and objectivity tends to have me tarred (inaccurately) as a leftie, socialist, bleeding heart etc. Most responders don't see the differences between Atheism and SH. That is if they have any idea what SH is and the obvious logical implications in topics. Especially those that focus on self interest and or prejudices. Some adopt the 'I'm alright Jack and Phht to anyone other than those I don't know or understand'.
I have in front of me ATM two state Humanist Society membership blurbs no where do either mention Atheist or(ism). After ph. conversations both VHS and most recently with Zelda of HSQ both emphasised that Humanism isn't A'ism or a subset there of either philosophically or organizationally.

As previously mentioned the differences are nuanced but definite.
There is in my mind, a world of difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism. The latter has philosophical problems with the afore mentioned Shamanistic cultures. I would therefore extrapolate from there.
This was clear in the exchange with AAF on OLO and the Skeptics else where. I also reject the tunnel vision of the green groups. Choosing instead to accommodate/incorporate that which objectively best advance (all of )humanity. The practical implication flow from there to me it isn't some feel good concept but but the motivation to continue albeit imperfectly at times. :-)

Dear David f,

I'm having a problem with the term -
'secular humanism.' Is the word
'secular,' really necessary?

I had always assumed that people
not Gods were the centre of humanistic
studies. As the Latin writer Terence wrote
"I am a man, and nothing human is foreign
to me." Is the term used because the early
humanists were religious - and the later humanists
urged a more robust reocognition of the realities of
human nature?

From my understanding - Humanism teaches that
every person has dignity
and worth and therefore should command the
respect of every other person.

Many educators and philosophers believe that
the greatest challenge to humanism, and a threat
to the safety of society, comes from too great an
emphasis on science and technology. They realize
that scientific achievements have greatly increased
our knowledge and power. But they also believe that
humanism must teach us how to use this knowledge and
power in a moral, human way.

Examinator, I'm sure, will be able to elaborate far
more eloquently on the subject than I can.

I love the humourous Humanistic literature - of
Geoffrey Chaucer's, "Canterbury Tales, and Boccaccio's
"Decameron."

And, where would we be without the Humanistic movement?
Probably still back in the dark ages - viewing
human beings as sinful creatures ...

Let's not forget that
much of modern Western culture comes from Humanistic
achievements

Davidf,

How have you determined/by what measure have you determined, that secular humanism is –better– than all the other isms that have gone before?

Dear Horus,

I hope you and David won't mind if I jump in
here, in response to the question you asked David.

Horus, Humanism flourised as a historical movement
in Europe from the 1300's to the 1500's. Its
approach to the study of humanity formed the
intellectual core of the cultural reawakening called
the 'Rennaissance.' As I wrote in my earlier post -
Humanism teaches that every person has dignity and
worth and therefore should command the respect of
every other person.

Much of modern Western culture comes from humanistic
achievements. The spirit and goals of humanism still
influence the Arts, Education, and Government.

Humanist artists included Michelangelo, Donatello,
just to name a few.

Today, humanistic education centres on the "Humanities,"
ranging from subjects like philosophy, languages,
literature, history,, and the arts. Together, these
subjects have humanistic ideals at their centre.
They try to interpret the meaning of life, rather than
just describing the physical world or society.

Humanism's opposition to political tyranny in the late 1700's
was an important influence in the American and French
revolutions. Both the American Declaration of Independence
and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man declare the
dignity of humanity. They are, therefore, humanistic as well
as political documents. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson
and other American revolutionary leaders, were among the
leading Humanists of their age.

I hope this answers your question.

Take care.

I'm sort of repeating other people's posts here, but I'm interested to know. Is secular humanism necessarily atheist? And in this context, I'm using the term 'atheist' loosely to ask the question: does secular humanism necessarily reject the existence of a god/creator/whatever?

Doing some (undoubtedly unreliable) internet research (and yes, shamefully, Wikipedia was involved), it seems that the primary focus of secular humanism is on the source of moral or ethical behaviour - that moral judgments derive from within humans and, thus, morality is a human construct rather than something imposed from 'above'. The rejection of God is based on a lack of evidence to support the existence of a god-figure, not on the rejection of the possibility of a god-figure.

Does this leave room for the possibility of God due to the lack of concrete evidence either way?

I love statements like - "..morality comes from the conscience and values of the community rather than any divine source".

Why not just say that for sectarians, morality comes from the carrot and stick approach.

No evil because of the threat of Divine Retribution, no good without the promise of a big payoff at some point in the future.
That is not morality, it's bribery and intimidation.

What about the simple notion of good for it's own sake and without the expectation of reward, such as "the conscience and values of the community"?

There are good and moral secular people and atheists all communities, just as there are religious extremists.

There's no justification in any group claiming some sort of moral ascendancy. Do do so would be well, "immoral".

Runner, what branch of science confirms the existence of talking snakes and donkeys and proves that the earth is flat with angels standing at each corner?
If we didn't come from monkeys then it's obvious that we came from dirt.
What group is ruled by dogmas?

david f,
"secular humanism"
I understand the secular and I support it as I am atheist. My problem is with the humanism. Did you see it anywhere, or we must re-discuver or re-create it!
HUMANISM WANTED!
david f, where was you sir, why did you disappear for so long time?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

David f I am one of those, not one word you say could not have come from me.
I want to highlight some of those, most who post here, who Dennie our right not to believe in a god, seem troubled.
I very much believe it to be a comfort blanket for those afraid to face reality.
And while I understand the good intentions of many they are matched by the harm done by all reildgions.
I have faith in the goodness of humans, after all we invented our own Gods, we do not have to be religious to be good people.
Runner? you follow your own road but remember you have no right to push others up the wrong track or to blame them for ideas you do not share.

Examinator wrote: There is in my mind, a world of difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism.

Dear Examinator: There is in my mind, no difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism. Atheism is not believing in a God. I know of no other kind of God than a supernatural God. Please explain the difference in your mind.

Dear Foxy,

The word, secular, is necessary because there is also religious humanism. This has a rich tradition which includes such individuals as Erasmus. Erasmus probably would have accepted points 5 and 6 that I mentioned. He would have rejected 1, 2 and possibly 3. He would have been unfamiliar with 4. When I was in Europe I visited Erasmus' home. I have read and greatly appreciated his "Praise of Folly". He was a genuine humanist but definitely not secular.

Dear Horus,

I haven't determined that secular humanism is better than other isms. I think it is a reasonable way to see the world. I don’t claim that my way is better or more right than your way.

Dear Otonoko,

If I were to get evidence that God exists I would accept the evidence. I think it more reasonable to assume that God is merely a human invention.

Wobbles asked: Why not just say that for sectarians, morality comes from the carrot and stick approach.

Dear Wobbles,

I can state what I believe without attacking those who believe something different.

Dear Antonios,

I have not disappeared. The fact you haven't been aware of my existence has not affected my continued existence. For a long while I was traveling along the south coast of Australia hiking and driving along the Great Ocean Road. There are magnificent spectacles there. The Chinese have the Yin-Yang symbol. In the dark side there is a light dot, and in the light side there is a dark dot. My belief is there there is a bit of secular humanism in every religious person and a bit of religious feeling in every secular humanist.

Dear runner,

May you attain a state of gruntlement.

Foxy,
I hear what you're saying, but nothing you've mentioned is unique to SH.

With all due respect- your post is a "before liberation .." speech
(Fellow Human could have said similar about Islam)

What is the X factor that makes SH superior?

It is obvious that humanism has adopted teachings as taught by Jesus Christ 1300 years earlier. That all men are equal, are to be respected and carry the dignity and image of Almighty God. Again Jesus taught the laws were made for men for moral boundaries; and not thet man were made for laws as posed by Judaism. Laws were a human construct, whereas social conscience and judgment based in love are a divine construct. This is emphasised also in Pauls writings 1 Corinthians 13 and 14.

Many today consider themselves SH merely to excusing their behaviours from social responsibility - I will do what feels right in my own conscience. Their conscience is not educated by respect for others but by self interest. Just listen to office conversations of how antagonists are spoken about

david f,
where do I get the idea
that secular humanism
accepts the mythology of a creator god
as a repository of knowledge?

from the same place you got the idea that it is:
"more reasonable to assume
that God is merely a human invention".

Dear Horus,

I would have thought that the 'X' factor
as you put it was fairly obvious. It's
an 'ism' which emphasizes the importance of
human beings - their nature and their place
in the universe. There have been many varieties
of humanism, both religious and nonreligious
but all Humanists agree that people are the centre
of their study.

This is not the case with Islam.
Islam is the Arabic word for "submission." It teaches
a believe in the One God and the acceptance of Muhammad
as His messenger. Muslim is an Arabic word that means
"one who submits to God.

Davidf, well said, couldn't agree more.

Davidf,

I consider myself an athiest.

By my lack of belief in a god, ipso facto the rest of your creed follows.

However, secular humanism is more than just that. It is an ethical basis upon which much of modern liberal society is formed.

Man has the right to do whatever pleases him as long as whatever he does, does not impact negatively on others.

This is essentially where secularism and the church part ways, as the church tries to mandate what is permissable in normal private life.

I agree with this point especially,

5. Re-examines knowledge and ideas continually, to achieve ways of improving the living conditions of humanity and the world environment.

You can't base your society on something that keeps changing - nothing would ever get done. That's why it's the religious who achieve great things, the humanists like Stalin, feminists (abortion), and Hitler only cause death. These humanists all believed they would "improve the living conditions of humanity and the world environment", and they put human knowledge before divine, universal truths.

It's OK to believe in the fairytale that we evolved from slugs, but rational people know this can never be disproven, so why push this faith-based belief down our throats.

Foxy,
I don’t know that the differences are so “obvious”, see Philo’s post above, he uses the word “obvious” too, but with a somewhat different conclusion.
“It is obvious that humanism has adopted teachings as taught by Jesus Christ 1300 years earlier…” i.e. God is behind it all!

What I am gleaning of SH is that it doesn’t differ too much from any other ism .
We may not have the Spanish inquisition, but we have it’s little brother –in the various commissions and covenants that increasingly regulate our behaviour ;regulate every thing from the words we are allowed to use ( words previously in regular use, now proscribed); to parenting (smacking a child is becoming increasingly suspect); to how one is allowed to die (euthanasia) .

And, we have some groups that do a pretty good impersonation of a SH clergy !

May be it has less to do with the ism and more to do with human nature—if, there is such a thing?

Philo wrote: It is obvious that humanism has adopted teachings as taught by Jesus Christ 1300 years earlier. … Again Jesus taught the laws were made for men for moral boundaries; and not thet man were made for laws as posed by Judaism.

Dear Philo,

Jesus lived and died a Jew, and his best teachings came from Judaism. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is from Leviticus. The Ten Commandments came from Judaism, also. Christians often denigrate Jesus’ religion. Other people constructed a new religion in the name of Jesus.

Whistler wrote: where do I get the idea
that secular humanism
accepts the mythology of a creator god
as a repository of knowledge?

from the same place you got the idea that it is:
"more reasonable to assume
that God is merely a human invention"

Dear Whistler,

That is really not an answer. Secular humanists have told and written their ideas. I have talked to many and have read humanist literature, and I have never heard of any secular humanist who accepted the idea of a creator god. I repeat: Where did you get that idea?

TRUTHNOW78 wrote: humanists like Stalin, feminists (abortion), and Hitler only cause death. These humanists all believed they would "improve the living conditions of humanity and the world environment", and they put human knowledge before divine, universal truths.

Stalin was not a humanist. He subscribed to a rigid philosophy called Marxism which had little consideration for humans that opposed that philosophy. Hitler was a Christian who used the hate inspired by hundreds of centuries of Christian bigotry to order the Holocaust which was applied Christianity.

Christians such as Pope John XXIII, Bishop Spong and the Evangelical Sisters of St. Mary have recognised Christian responsibility:

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:
"No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6) 
This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

Dear Horus,

Well you've certainly given me some food
for thought - I'll have to think about
things a bit more and get back to you.
It won't be for a couple of days though -
as early tomorrow we're leaving for a 'mini'
holiday in rural Victoria - doing a
tour of the wine regions.

In the meantime - take care.

I find your six points pretty reasonable, David.
Having said that, I find myself being in partial agreement with Runner, oddly enough. The sticking point is item 3, concerning morality.
Can we be certain the morality of the secular humanist is entirely his/her own, and not a byproduct of the society they grew up in?
Even though I dispute the divinity of Jesus, I cannot deny my moral code probably comes largely from my Presbyterian Sunday school upbringing. As Philo pointed out, Jesus was a bit of a Humanist. Even in Sunday school, I was struck by how much time JC spent talking about how people should get along together, and how little was really said about God, and Heaven.
As I have said on other posts, I would consider the defining characteristic of Humans, is their ability (or at least, the ability of some of them) to imagine themselves in another position; even to the extreme of animals they prey on, and to apply the ethic of reciprocity.
Happily for secularists, it could reasonably be argued that the most bizarre and abhorrent practices, accepted in some communities, are the result of religious, or quasi religious beliefs.
I'm curious, Runner. What do think happens to prostitutes and homosexuals, of both sexes?
And what do you think should happen?

whistler,
So you imagine there is no absolutes in morality and that God is merely a human invention. Then where did secular humanism originate other than some ones ideas of reality based on previous teaching.

It is not Secular Humanism that is motivating the majority of change in this world. It pities the plight of dispossed, but does nothing. It is the Churches that have organised projects for the betterment of the poor, sick in under developed countries. Find out the philosophical motivations of those working in these nations.

Most Secular Humanists I know sit at their desk and espouse their virtues but do nothing. In my community it is the Christians I see that reach out a helping hand; that are going to poor countries to teach them skills and help in personal development. They have learned sacrifice from their master - Jesus.

I am personally involved in programmes for intellectually disadvantaged young adults because We believe their quality of life can be lifted to perform with dignity

Grim, Runner, Philo et al,

There isn't a religion that does not have the same or similar values.

That they are the values needed for society to function, it could be argued that the religious values are a construct of the society they came from.

Hello Grim

You ask
I'm curious, Runner. What do think happens to prostitutes and homosexuals, of both sexes?
And what do you think should happen?

The Scriptures declare salvation only through Jesus Christ. Most people are to proud to even admit that they need a Saviour and hence mock God. Homosexuality like fornication, adultery, lying and thieving is sin. All have sinned because of our adamic nature and choices in life. Unrepentant sinners have chosen their path to hell by rejecting a merciful God who sent His Son to die a horrible death for them.

You ask me what should happen. Well that is not my call. All I know is that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. I strongly believe that God desires for all to come to salvation and takes no delight in the death of the unrepentant arrogant, the immoral or the god denier. People who refuse to teach their kids the way of salvation are really child abusers.

Dear Grim,

The social environment influenced everybody's morality. Following is from Christians questioning their morality.

From Bishop Spong recognising Christian inspired hate resulting in the Holocaust

ANTI-SEMITISM: And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25); No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible "Word of God" in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

Bishop Spong recognises the sexism inherent in Christianity.

SEXISM:

"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9);The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve. She was taken out of man and was not his equal, but his helpmeet. Evil entered human history through the weakness of the woman. She was made to bear the blame and the guilt. She was the source of death."

Some opposition to abortion would deny women control over their bodies. Some Christians prefer women to be mere baby-making machines.

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel1.htm is part of the website of the Evangelical Sisters of St. Mary. The beginning of the website.

The Guilt of Christianity Towards the Jewish People
How It All Began;
The Middle Ages;
The Modern Era;
A Call to Repentance;
Recommended Reading

After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, the question was raised: How could it have happened? The shocking truth is that the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of hatred and violent persecution, often inspired by Christian theology.

End of extract

One way that Christianity denies its guilt for the Holocaust is by calling Hitler who was raised a Christian and had a Concordat with the Vatican a humanist. Hitler lived and died a Christian unlike Jesus who lived and died a Jew.

Gee Runner, what a grim, backward world you paint!
I was brought up a strict Catholic, fully expecting to burn in the fires of hell as a child if I didn't attend mass every Sunday or if I told a lie to my parents. That was child abuse.

Then I found out that if I did commit a sin, all I need do is go to confession the next week and confess, and I would be forgiven. Easy really. So, all the paedophile Priests or Brothers had to do was confess these 'sinful yearnings' to their confessors regularly and they could happily go on offending with a clear conscience.

Then I grew up and was able to think for myself rather than go by a 2000 year old book written by men who claim to know what 'God' wants of us.

Now I often wonder what happened to all the millions of people in the world (our ancestors) who lived before the supposed son of God came among us to 'save' us 2000 years ago?

All these people must have been living a very sinful life indeed without the guidance of an old book to go by? Hell must have been full to overflowing of all those people!

As for Runner's last controversial gem of wisdom- 'People who refuse to teach their kids the way of salvation are really child abusers', words almost escape me at the hypocracy of this statement.

The number of so-called Christian teachers who have taught the supposed word of salvation to children, such as Ministers, Priests, Nuns, Brothers and Deacons, who also taught sexual abuse, physical and mental abuse to the kiddies as well cannot be counted.

I believe children can be taught the morals, rights and wrongs of living in our society by other good people. We don't need religion to tell us how. I know this because there are just as many really amoral people amongst religious people as amongst anyone else

i got the idea it is reasonable
to assume God is a human invention
from Aborigines, david f.

Now that was a great post suzeonline, welcome.
Forgive runner he/she is bogged down in a desperate need to clutch on to the straw, the idea man is just a plaything for one or another God.
Look at every book runner, some truly great books telling about humans have been written.
Every work of art, painting, film shows man is able to understand and create a whole lot more than you think.
I have read thousands of books, fact or fiction man created every one of them.
The sun will rise this morning, on every country every religion equally.
It is not the work of a God who has us all in his toy box, it is not a God who wants us all on our knees before him/her.
If it was? I My Friend would not bend for such a tyrant.

Very good point, Shadow; in fact I would go further, and suggest it can hardly be denied that religious values are a construct of the society they come from.
I'm sorry, Runner, but this sentence bothers me greatly.
"Unrepentant sinners have chosen their path to hell by rejecting a merciful God who sent His Son to die a horrible death for them."
I don't really understand how any father could sent his child to a horrible death for any reason, and still be described as 'merciful'. On the same note, we in Australia only incarcerate even child molesters, rapists and murderers. I can't imagine any human worthy of the name condemning even monsters like this to a lifetime of torture and torment, much less an eternity.
Why would a so called merciful God condemn a Human, created in his own image, created with the ability to reason, and question and wonder, to an eternity of torment, for not having 'faith' in a story handed down through story tellers for thousands of years?
Why would you give homage to a being who is self evidently less 'moral' than you are?

davidf,
You see yourself rather smart to misquote words recorded in the NT used by the Jewish opponents of Jesus to have him put to death. Your ignorance of reading text is demonstratably unintelligent. This is not the attitude of Jesus, who wept for his countrymen, or should be of his followers. Read the story of true Christians like the Ten Boon family during the Third Reich who gave food and protection to Jews. Anti Semitism is not a Christian development, and Hitler was not a follower Of the teachings of Jesus.

To quote you,"ANTI-SEMITISM: And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25); No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible "Word of God" in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

When you quote scripture be sure of its context. Tell the truth about Jesus who prayed for his murderers forgivness. Do not quote lies in the name of Christ. Obviously you have few moral scruples about facts. Your bigotry reveales your deception and is not a true representation of Christian practise or faith.

So according to runner, we can all be dreadful sinners, wreak havoc and pain on all while we are on earth and all we have to do is seek salvation and we will be alright Jack.

I often wonder at those men who collaborated to write the Bible back then, possibly well intentioned to get people to think about selflessness, compassion etc, are now turning in their graves at what they created and probably never intended to be eternal - merely a short term means to an end.

Philo,

"...social conscience and judgment based in love are a divine construct." - P.

Can you develop? How does one demonstrate that underlying factors framing the construct are supermundane and that these factors achieve convergent validity, while there is discriminant validity, diminishing the mundane, pointing away from the natural, proving the factors studied are not natural, e.g., sociability "not" having value as a species specific response to ecology: Instead other-than-Earthly factors lead to the divine?

Philo:

I am scrupulous about facts. I quoted Anglican Bishop Spong who has recognised the bigotry inherent in Christianity. The website: http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned, but Mein Kampf never appeared on the Catholic Index of Forbidden Books.

Many Christians have recognised the link. "CONSTANTINE'S SWORD The Church and the Jews: A History." by John Carroll tells of the centuries of Christian persecution of the Jews.

The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Darmstadt, Germany; is a community founded in 1947 by Mother Basilea Schlink in atonement for Christian antisemitism.

Her words:

"Instead of being united in love for God, we as Christians have sinned grievously against God's covenant people. Two thousand years of Church history have left a trail of blood: contempt, hatred, hostility, persecution and wholesale slaughter.

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways."

Whistler:

I didn't ask where you got the idea that God is a human invention. I asked where you got the idea that secular humanism accepts the mythology of a creator god as a repository of knowledge?

Seriously, Oliver, did you expect Philo to wade through that crap and respond in kind, or did you think Philo would say "gee, this bloke knows more big words than I do, I guess I'd better shut up".
I think it's safe to assume anyone who believes in a creator is going to think "social conscience and judgment based in love are a divine construct".
After all, they believe they themselves are a divine construct, so how can any of their thoughts not be?

Whistler, you given me a thought.

>>i got the idea it is reasonable
to assume God is a human invention
from Aborigines, david f.<<

Your posts are short ones
And neatly laid out. Do you
think in haiku too?

It could quite improve
The impact of argument
If we did the same

No more rambling thoughts
Just pithy and to the point
Easier to read.

Discipline is all.
Train our minds to a new path
Short and sweet is best.

Graham, up to you.
No more need to count our words
Only print haiku.

(And please don't flame me
for omitting Spring or Fall
This is OLO)

God will be perfectly just to send lawbreakers to hell of which we all are. What amazes me that He is so merciful and loving that He has provided us with a way of escape. The self righteousness of people who can't see their need of salvation amazes me. Most are bound by lust, greed and self righteousness. Paul accurately describes mans heart in the days we live in. He describes people will be lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, lovers of self, disobedient to parents, lovers of money, ungrateful, blasphemers.

The only reason people can't see the love and mercy of God is that they can't see the rottenness of their own heart.The rejection of the gospel has nothing to do with being intellectual or open minded but everything to do with self righteousness.

Grim,

What is implicit in the crap is, that, if all good is in heaven, then by default humanity is intrinsically bad. A position with which secular humanism would not agree. Moreover, how can good only exist in heaven or divine realm, while at the same time Christian religionists assert humans to be in the image of a loving god? At best, in the case of Christianity, it could be said, that we are evil, unless influenced by the Holy Spirit. If the last proposition is correct, then secular humanists are touched by the Holy Spirit, despite their disbelief, given not all secular humanists are evil.

The last sentence might beg one to ask of religionists; Are secular humanists evil?

I would maintain humanity, believers or not, are both good and bad. Moreover, in the OT God behaved badly and Jesus in the NT is good.

Oliver,
I will not unscramble your ramblings.

When God designed the Universe and placed man in it, he considered man very good (Genesis 1: 31), man was designed to reflect moral purity. The only being in the universe that can make moral judgments is man, he is socially responsible for his behaviour. That is part of the design of the human spirit. Because we are now by nature wayward of respect others and their property we have laws that enforce social boundaries. Obedient observance of good citizenship does not come by innate nature we have to be educated in morality. Jesus teaching is not based merely in, "Thou shalt not kill"; but if you harbour hatred in your heart against another you have violated moral purity. Wishing another dead is a social moral violation.

The Church has been the only socially organised body in the past to teach morality. However the history of the Church is a miserable failure in the teachings of Jesus. Bishop Spong is no virtue of Christ's teaching. Spong espouses his own predjudices and not the teachings of Christ, so is not an authority on true Christian theology.

No person has a monolopy on moral purity, since we all are inclined to do things we know threatens or detracts from anothers best interests - just listen to the office gossip. Even persons calling themselves Christian fail in social standards of moral purity. They must also pay the price of their injustice.

Philo wrote: "The Church has been the only socially organised body in the past to teach morality."

Dear Philo,

That statement is absolute rubbish. Morality is the stock in trade of most religions, societies and philosophies.

Philo also wrote: Spong espouses his own predjudices and not the teachings of Christ, so is not an authority on true Christian theology.

That is also rubbish. Many Christians claim that other Christians who don't see things the way they do just espouse their own prejudices. Bishop Spong is objective enough to look at his own religion and see its faults. With Christians like Bishop Spong the religion can eliminate some of its faults by admitting them and confronting them.

Philo also wrote: Even persons calling themselves Christian fail in social standards of moral purity.

That is also rubbish. Even? Christians are no more morally pure than anybody else.

Philo also wrote: Jesus teaching is not based merely in, "Thou shalt not kill";

That is true. Jesus was a Jew and got that from the Ten Commandments. He get "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself" from Leviticus. The best part of his teaching comes from the fact that he was a Jew. People who call themselves Christians claim to follow Jesus but reject his Jewish religion.

I always knew there was a word for it, i must be secular.

Oliver, thank you for elucidating (or dumbing down).
To paraphrase the oft mentioned Voltaire, I agree with everything you say, and would fight to the death for the ah, right to um, understand it.

davidf,

As previously stated I went through this before... Atheism is a single focus issue e.g. one can logically be an almighty prick and be a true Atheist (i.e. Starlin) but not a SH. SH focus on morality etc makes that logically impossible.

I don't believe in God (supernatural as in final determinist God).
However I have no problem in leaving PNG natives(and aborigines) with their Shamanistic beliefs....(Their understanding of God aka spirits is so different as to be incomparable in any western sense.)

Their beliefs/people can't be separated into neat western thought patterns. Their culture is all encompassing and impossible for one so lacking in verbal skills like me to explain to anyone who hasn't been INTIMATELY exposed or a willingness to take a larger perspective ask Belly, Romany. Foxy may not wish to subscribe but has grasped but her posts clearly shows the the essential elements.

NB There is a difference between having been there and experiencing it.

It seems to me you have an agenda ...beyond informational.
Your semantical question on "other type" of God betrays that or a limited ability for abstract nuance, either way this is neither the time or place for a philosophic debate.

Notwithstanding I am open to real information seeking.

Dear Examinator,

I agree that atheism is different from SH. That is why I posted the 6 statements at the beginning of this string. An atheist may only subscribe to the first one.

I ask you again. There is in my mind, no difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism. Atheism is not believing in a God. I know of no other kind of God than a supernatural God. Please explain the difference in your mind.

I just read an interesting book. "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville. He makes the case that an atheist can have experiences similar to those of a religious mystic. I think he makes a good try at putting an ineffable experience into words.

I am sure I miss many nuances due to being somewhat autistic. In addition I am at odds with the understanding of most of the people on this list. Even if one is an atheist one thinks of religion in terms of the religion one is most familiar with. I am much more familiar with Judaism than with Christianity. It seems odd to refer to a human as God.

I couldn't find my semantical question on "other type" of God. Please refresh me. Perish forbid I should be antisemantic.

I think OlO is an excellent place for a philosophic debate, and you seem like an excellent person to have such a debate with. If this doesn't seem the place for it please start a new string.

Davidf

perhaps I spelled it wrong semantic....an argument over the meaning of words. Not SemEtic which is commonly misinterpreted as being anti jew.
I was as I said refering to the fact that understanding of god (s) means very different things to different cultures.
e.g.In Judaism and Christianity. God is a personage who looks down on men and hands out morals (father figure) etc.
In Sharmanism....there is no such god rather a concept of 'spirits' that are in nature. Unlike the western concept people of this type ARE
part of the nature i.e. they ARE the animals, trees,wind, rain etc.

What I was referring to is that in Both Judaism and Christianity people are separate and the God is above all i.e. SUPERnatural.
Clearly then in shamanism the people the animals etc are all PART of nature and can not be separated into God...nature...morals...people. In that context Supernatural is inappropriate.
Keep in mind Shaman spirits are different to ghosts and western spiritualism really doesn't apply either.
Perhaps you should read some Anthropology or structure of religions it may help
In the context of the differences between SECULAR HUMANISM and Atheism the latter does not acknowledge the subtle difference in what is meant by SUPERnatural as in not of normal natural state.

The some other qualifying differences are that Atheism on dogma can't accept the differences as set out above.
This unfortunately leads to the same alienation from their place in their understanding of their creation/cosmos as does both Judaism and Christianity.

It is all too clear that in most Shaman cultures the separation into discrete areas creates cultural and human catastrophes.

I hope this helps

David.F. I would just like to thank you and all the contributors that agreed with your' thoughts on secular humanism.

At last I have two words that describe how I feel in a world of varying fairytales about so-called Gods.
I am a secular humanist!

I would especially like to thank Runner and Phillo for reminding me why I didn't pursue a religious way of thinking!

david f, would a Secular humanist consider
humans created mythology which creates humans
mostly before the arrival of print?

Dear David f,
I came too late to the interesting thread you started.
>> I consider the above positions more reasonable than any supernatural mumbo-jumbo.<<
Did you want to discuss possible definitions of “secular humanism” (a necessary task to clarify terms before one makes statements about them) or attack alternative positions? Judging from the reactions you received, most people here - whether they agree with you or not - think (for whatever emotional reasons) you wanted the latter.

Returning to your original definition, I think points 4.,5., and 6. are shared by many, also e.g. Christians (including myself) who normally do not call themselves “secular“ humanists. Erasmus is a good example, but there is also a Catholic version of it (Jacques Martian’s Humanisme Intégral).

I think “secular humanist” is the more appropriate name for the non-religious counterparts of those in our society whose world-view contains some religion, than “secularist“ that not only better rhymes with “islamist“ or (Christian) “fundamentalist“ but also should perhaps be retained for the non-tolerant variety of atheists.

>>I can state what I believe without attacking those who believe something different. ... Holocaust which was applied Christianity, etc<<
I certainly share the sentiments of your first sentence, so I would never write ...... well, I am sure you do not need quotes from sources that blame Jews for Communism and most every other calamity in our recent history.

I describe myself as a "de facto" atheist, as I agree with Einstein's famous qualification of a 'personal' God. That is, I find the idea of a God that can (or even needs to) change the 'natural' order of events on behalf of a single petitioner not only illogical, but quite unsubstantiated.
Bad things happen to good people every day.
The other logical problem is, believers start by telling us God is omniscient, omnipotent and all powerful. Such a being would require a mind with computational power greater than (say) the number of stars in the Universe.
These same believers then go on to explain to us just exactly what this supreme mind wants, and how we should please it.
The vast majority of these believers would have trouble understanding the mind of Stephan Hawking, much less God.
Having said all that, I still believe in a God. Perhaps I just can't shake the paradigms I was raised within, but after vacillating for 40 odd years, I have come to think the evidence before us tends to indicate a fractal universe. Everything appears to form a small part of something greater.
In such a universe, an Ultimate being, or conscienceness seems to me, statistically inevitable.
But whether or not such a being exists or not really doesn't matter, as it is far, far more removed from me, than a single atom in the body of someone on the other side of the planet is.
So, thanks to David f''s definitions, I can say I am essentially a secular humanist, while not necessarily an atheist.
Examinator, perhaps you should borrow Oliver's term “supermundane” to differentiate between an elevated God, and Shamanistic spirits, which are still technically supernatural.

suzeonline

You can label yourself a secular humanist, earth worshiper, naturalist or whatever you like. You still however like every other human on this planet is in desperate need of God's mercy and forgiveness. Denial does not change reality.

Dear George,

Referring to supernatural mumbo-jumbo was provocative and pejorative. I should have used other words in that and referring to the Holocaust as applied Christianity.

I apologise for both usages. Regretfully I reflect the behaviour of those whose ideas I find abhorrent.

Christianity, Judaism, secular humanism and most other worldviews are complex.

However, saying that the roots of antisemitism are found in Christianity is simply fact. Some Christians examine their tradition, confront what they find wrong and try to change it for the better. Pope John XXIII, Basilea Schlink and Bishop Spong are examples of Christians who have confronted Christian antisemitism. Some Lutherans have been very thorough at examining their past in that area. H. G. Haile, a Lutheran, wrote a biography of Luther which thoroughly explored Luther's antisemitism. Fortress Press, the Lutheran publishing house, published "The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation" by Heiko Oberman translated from German. Unfortunately it doesn't always get to the average parishioner as these matters are not usually discussed. I was talking an Australian Lutheran clergyman who had studied at St. Olaf's Seminary in the US. St. Olaf's considered many areas which I thought clergymen in general were not concerned with. I asked the minister which of these ideas he discussed with his parishioners. He answered that he didn't want to disturb their simple faith. The minister has since left the clergy and his faith. Maybe some of his parishioners have also left their church since they may have wanted more than simple faith.

Unfortunately there is a tendency to divide humans into we/they. I know a Marxist in Sydney who has stated: "Real Marxists don't beat their wives." "Stalin was not a real Marxist" (That reflects Philo's statement: "Hitler was not a follower Of the teachings of Jesus." When someone belonging to your group acts in a manner to which you object you deny he is a member of your group.) This Marxist has an eschatological view and has spoken of a final battle in which the Marxist forces will defeat the forces of reaction

Philo wrote: "Laws were a human construct, whereas social conscience and judgment based in love are a divine construct." "Again Jesus taught the laws were made for men for moral boundaries; and not thet man were made for laws as posed by Judaism." "Many today consider themselves SH merely to excusing their behaviours from social responsibility."

This is just another way of saying. What I believe comes from God and what you believe does not come from God. I see as subtexts in his statement, Jews follow the law, but Christians are divinely inspired. Christians are social responsible. SH are not. We are good. You are bad.

If one reads the Jewish Bible one can see that the law to a great extent proceeds from "social conscience and judgment based in love." The New Testament condemns those who do not believe as Jesus does. Both religions have many of the same attitudes in them, but they also have separate views. I find the usage Judeo-Christian offensive as it erases the differences.

There is the notion of 'the new human'. New societies are formed which have a new beginning. We are all products of our past, and it is the insights and attitudes we have gained in the past that become part of the new human.

In "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville, Comte-Sponville writes of the attitudes derived from his Catholic background and his retention and rejection of these attitudes. One attitude he has retained is a feeling for the spiritual. The last section of the book asks if there can be atheist spirituality. His answer is ‘yes’, and I learned about his concept of spirituality. As an atheist he does not believe in an afterlife or immortal soul. He claims it makes death less frightening to regard merely as the end of existence. It was all new to me since I never believed in an afterlife or an immortal soul since it was not in my religious background which regarded death in the way that Comte-Sponville regards it as an atheist.

re john 14;6

In all of his.."I am" statements,..including this one,..His use of the phrase.."I am"..was in direct reference to what God told Moses at the burning bush.

Moses asked what he should say if the Israelites asked what God's name was,and God answered,.."This is what you are to say to the Israelites:..I AM has sent me to you'(Exodus 3:14)."

The significance of the use of "I am" would not have been lost on the listeners of Jesus' day.

read it in context of jesus creating the xtian..'place'

cite John 14:2..and suggest that the "many mansions" may refer to the heavenly palaces in which Hindus and Buddhists will dwell..alongside Christians...in the hereafter.

14“Do not let your hearts be troubled...Believe in God,..believe also in me.

2In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places....If it were not so,.would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

3And if I go and prepare a place for you,..I will come again and will take you to myself,..so that where I am,...there you may be also

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=Jesus+was+a+Jew+%3F&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

Jesus Himself was not a Jew(Judean) or resident of Judea,..He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee(Matthew 26:69; John 7:41),..and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah.

The Judeans of prominence..were not of the Tribe of Judah,..but of Edomites...Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign.."Jesus of Nazareth,..King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19).

That is,.."the Galilean who was King of the Judeans,"as in "Queen Victoria of England,Empress of India."

Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee.. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee...And although He visited Jerusalem,he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee.

John 7:1,.."After this Jesus stayed in Galilee;..for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."..His followers were constrained "for fear of the Jews"..(John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).

Why was this?

Psalm 83:3 says God's elect are "hidden" or protected ones,..and that they are under attack from a coalition of evil groups led by Edom. Who was Edom?

Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob,..became the ancestor of the people called Edom,or Idumea.

The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, XIII ix 1; XV vii 9 instructs us: John Hyrcanus forcibly assimilated the Edomites as a national group and they became "Jews" in about 120BC.

The Jewish historian Josephus,..who lived just after the time of Christ, wrote,.."They[Edom]..were hereafter no other than Jews'.

The Jewish scholar Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980)says on page 154,"John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism.

From then on..they were part of the Jewish people. In the Talmud the name of Edom was applied to Christian Rome,..and was then used for Christianity in general".

extrtacted from link

Shh! No-one tell the Christians that the Bible contains a misattributed hodge-podge of ancient Greek rationalism.

I upsets them mightily to realise that the morality they believe to be god-given was constructed by toga-wearing polytheists and proto-secularists.

Davidf,
I and most anthropologists would disagree that humanism has its roots in Christianity. In fact many of the concepts are displayed before and separate from Christianity. One could argue much is genetic hard wired Survival of the individuals genes (Dawkins). SH can by virtue of their 'moral and humanity can co-exist with shamanistic belief structures. C/J and Islam see themselves as being the one true absolute way belief what ever. Buddhism could be also described as a 'humanistic' belief in that there are no gods and focuses on the human element etc.

Your observation about individuals not doing as they profess being defined as not being "a good anything" is true but is off what We were talking about i.e. *philosophical* comparison. When I mentioned Starlin was to illustrate that to be an Atheist one simply doesn't need to believe in a god. To be a SH there are a number of criteria.
The example I gave was shamanism (PNG).
Atheists logically see nothing unto aught about debunking shamanistic cosmology/reasoning to maintain their principal of no gods. What they and the West mindset(Christianity/Judaism, Islam) tend to miss is as I pointed out the indivisibility of these beliefs into separate fields.
While Judaism and Islam try to link the nature, behaviour, practically based taboos etc like shamanism but they tend to place god as being above all (thus Supernatural) where as that distinction/role doesn't can't exist in shamanism.(at least the PNG versions I have witnessed.
IMHO the choice of the PNG is binary either they maintain a culture that is 10s of Eons older than Aborigines or ditch it in entirety to become 'religion-fied' a concept requiring nuance and abstractions both of which are missing both conceptually and therefore in language. Most 800 languages not dialects are literal superlatives etc are noticeably absent.

DavidF has given us his six principles of Secular humanism.
1.But has not defined the spiritual unity of the universe.

2. Holds that a person has only one life, but has not given a purpose of being.

3. Considers that morality comes from the conscience and values of the community. But he cannot accept an absolute of moral purity - the image of Godliness.

4. Considers that science provides a more authentic understanding about the origin and nature of the universe. But cannot explain how DNA was formed.

5. Re-examines knowledge and ideas continually, to achieve ways of improving the living conditions of humanity and the world environment.
He has left secular science free reign for which we now know is the major cause of environmental problems.

6. Tries to maintain an open mind, recognising that human knowledge is never the final answer, and are prepared to live with uncertainty and accept that we may be wrong. Is this a confession there is an absolute after all, to which we aspire.

Runner:“You can label yourself a secular humanist, earth worshiper, naturalist or whatever you like. You still however like every other human on this planet is in desperate need of God's mercy and forgiveness. Denial does not change reality.”

Well said.

Anyone read “The Golden Torc”? Nah I can’t remember who wrote it, was a sci fi book I read when young.

This alien race put these necklace things on people which then enabled them to read the people’s minds. Now my recollection of the whole thing is cloudy and only one little bit and its meaning clicked with me and I remember it when listening to anyone where I don’t grasp their beliefs:

One person was deciding if they liked another person or could include them in something (not relevant really) and so they concentrated and read this other persons mind and way down deep they found a belief, an absolute held true faith. This person whose mind was being read believed beyond any doubt that there was another world with little people living in the centre of earth (or wateva planet it was at the time).

The mind reader could also see that this faith was so deep that the person could not be convinced in any way that this other world wasn’t real.

I don’t think the book mentioned if there was a little world in the middle of the planet but that’s hardly the point is it.

1. Rejects ideas of a creator god, believed by some to control human life and answer prayers.
2. Holds that a person has only one life, since the evidence for personal existence before conception or after death is totally unconvincing.
3. Considers that morality comes from the conscience and values of the community rather than any divine source.
4. Considers that science provides a more authentic understanding about the origin and nature of the universe than that found in ancient scriptures.
5. Re-examines knowledge and ideas continually, to achieve ways of improving the living conditions of humanity and the world environment.
6. Tries to maintain an open mind, recognising that human knowledge is never the final answer, and are prepared to live with uncertainty and accept that we may be wrong.

No mutilating of genitals? (did I get that one in before Banjo?)
No multiple wives and child brides?
No disinfecting cooking implements in cow dung?
No knocking on doors and thrusting pamphlets at the unsuspecting?
No chocolate eggs?
No burning boxes on the sidewalks of NY once a year?
No funny hair dos?
No fantasizing that your ex came back as a bug?
No killing in the name of a deity?

IT'S NOT MUCH FUN IS IT MR F!?!

(I have a fever!)

Dear David f,
No apology was needed, though I appreciate it.

>>the roots of antisemitism are found in Christianity is simply fact<<
It is not an established fact but depends on what you mean by roots, however I tend to agree with you: the roots of many things, good and bad, are found in Christianity since Christianity influenced and determined all European culture and thinking for many centuries.

I already spoke on this OLO about the difference between anti-semitism (against the Jewish race) and anti-Judaism (against the Jewish religion) and that Christianity and the Church were guilty only of the second one, although I agree that its religious anti-Judaism contributed to the recent rise in racial anti-semitism. Although John Paul II apologised for many things from the past, it does not imply that the Church and its people were the only ones thinking and acting in the way today we all rightfully condemn.

As to your last paragraph, as much as I do not like “ifs” in history, I am convinced that neither Jesus nor Paul would endorse what Hitler said and did, nor would Marx what Stalin said and did.

George

Just an observation, Jesus (being Jewish) would never have had much opportunity to "endorse" Hitler - it would've been the gas chambers for him. Paul would've endorsed whatever gave him more status, similarly Marx and Stalin were more into power than religion per se. Of course it is highly presumptuous to claim whatever a deceased person would do or say. We can never, ever know for sure.

Piper

I read the same sci-fi book too - all I can remember is that the torqs were for controlling people via their thoughts - don't remember anything about little people in the middle of the planet. But I do remember a sci-fi short story about missionaries (being the nerd that I am).

It goes like this, somewhere out past Alpha-Centuari is a solar system similar to ours, one of the planets is an earth-like planet where a race of intelligent although technologically primitive (vegetarian and lived in grass huts). However they were very good at art and traded with a lone earthman who enjoyed visiting their peaceful world. Anyway, to cut to the chase, a Christian missionary arrived one fine day to 'save the souls' of these people (they didn't have any religion at all - just a Bill and Ted sort of thing of being excellent to one another). Well the missionary taught them all about Jesus and how he was crucified by non-believers but rose from the dead because he was god's son and all. Well the art-trader was unhappy at how the people got right into Christianity because he thought that their lives were already peaceful and good - no murders, rapes, theft etc. In fact they had no concept of deliberately taking the life of another, not even other animals; they were vegetarian remember?

These people believed the missionary when he told them that he was a representative of God, spreading the word of Jesus, they decided that he too would rise from the dead if crucified, and so, they committed their first murder. In the name of God of course.

Fracetlle:”These people believed the missionary when he told them that he was a representative of God, spreading the word of Jesus, they decided that he too would rise from the dead if crucified, and so, they committed their first murder. In the name of God of course.”

Well of course.

I love stories like that and it sounds really familiar, I guess anything that mirrors human behavior. I have all of Terry Pratchett’s Disc World books but I think I miss a lot that is probably a reference to life in Britain or its politics.

Have not read a sci fi book in probably 15 years though, they need concentration and I haven’t been able to concentrate in over a decade.[grin]

Can someone explain – are the Jews a Race and a Religion?

So when some of the Lebanese say to me “we are not Arab we are Christian” they are right?

Dear George,

I don't think Jesus would have endorsed Hitler, Stalin or Christianity. Paul was intolerant to Christians before the road to Damascus, and then he was intolerant of non-Christians. He might well have approved of Hitler. However, Marx could have approved of both Stalin and Hitler.

You wrote 'about the difference between anti-semitism (against the Jewish race) and anti-Judaism (against the Jewish religion)' There is no Jewish race. I am very blond (at least I used to be before my hair turned white), and my cousin married a nice Jewish girl who is also black. We come in different colours, are an ethnic group and a religion. "Hoo, boy, I'm being burned at the stake for my religion not my race. Whee!"

Wilhelm Marr invented the word, Antisemitism, in 1879 when he set up his League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews and advocating their forced removal from the country. Hatred of Jews because of their ancestry started centuries earlier. After the expulsion or conversion of Jews and Muslims, the population of Portugal and Spain was all nominally Christian. However, many distrusted the recently-converted "New Christians," calling them as conversos or marranos if they were baptized Jews or descended from them, or Moriscos if they were baptized Muslims or descended from them. A commonly-leveled accusation was that the New Christians were false converts, secretly practicing their former religion as Crypto-Jews or Crypto-Muslims. Nevertheless, the concept of cleanliness of blood (Limpieza de sangre (in Spanish), Limpeza de sangue (in Portuguese), both meaning "cleanliness of ancestry") came to be more focused on ancestry than of personal religion. The first purity of blood statute appeared in Toledo, 1449. Initially the monarchy and the Church condemned these statutes. In 1496, Alexander VI approved a purity statute for the Hieronymite Order. From then on much of the Inquisition was focussed on marranos or moriscos or their descendents regardless of their commitment to Catholicism.

continued

continued

Marx was a vicious antisemite and explicitly advocated a totalitarian state. In the manifesto he made plain that he had little regard for a free press, a representative legislature, an independent judiciary and all the other appurtenances that protect us from state tyranny. Marx had no more regard for the mechanisms that protect us from the arbitrary power of the state than the Nazi or Soviet dictatorships did. In the manifesto Marx specifically stated that the state should control all means of transportation and communication. He also stated that the property of emigrants or rebels should be confiscated. I live in Australia but get my US Social Security. A Marxist state would deny me that.

Bakunin who split from the First International in 1872 opposed the Marxist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, a transitional state on the way to stateless communism. Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by Marxists),

Bakunin's predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, and created a vast bureaucratic police state.

From Marx’s “On the Jewish Question”:

“We explain the tenacity of the Jew …. by the human basis of his religion – practical need, egoism.”

"Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, ..."

"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

If it weren’t for his ancestry Marx could have been a Nazi.

Philo:

I can’t attach meaning to ‘spiritual unity of the universe’ and ‘Godliness’. Explain how DNA was formed? I can't even prove the Reimann-Zeta conjecture. One big cause of environmental problems is the opposition to population control by some religions.

PP
>>"are the Jews a Race and a Religion?"<< Short answer.. no.

>>"So when some of the Lebanese say to me “we are not Arab we are Christian” they are right?" Short answer..Depends on their definitions.

However both Genetic Israelis and most Arabs are Semitic races. Although if you are anti Jew you are called anti-semitic but not if you're anti Palestinian. Then you're anti Arab. I guess it's all in your perspective and how precise you want to be.

david f,

"However, many distrusted the recently-converted 'New Christians,' calling them as conversos or marranos ..." - df

In the fifteenth century, when "converos" (converts)" and marranos (pigs) became upwardly mobile, they were persecuted and killed. It was hard to be a Jew under Isabella and Ferdinand. Alexander VI designated the Spanish monarchs "Catholic Kings" (I know Isabella ia women)for purifying Spain of the Jews.

I can't see Jesus, who was clearly a humanist, supporting the above cleansing. Moreover, Alexander's actions would seem to call into question the actions of the Vicar of Christ and the doctrine of infallibility under ex cathredra. The action of the Pope Alexanver VI, I posit, was a matter of religion and a morally wrong act. Alexander should have supported the Jews.

Among the converts, there was also a creole religion, wherein humanity is saved by the Law of Moses.

Although, to give some Christians positive recognition many brave Danish Christians protected the Jews from German Christians in WWII.

Piper

I adore Terry Pratchett too. And Douglas Adams may he R.I.P. And thanks to secular humanism we are free to read novels like this. While the religious are free to read their bibles, korans, torahs or whatever.

Also we are free not to rant on and on in a very boring fashion - not that I haven't learned a lot from some folks on OLO, but sometimes.... I'd rather go watch paint dry.

:)

Hey Fractelle and PP, with you on disc world and Adams. I think the 'Golden Torc' you have referred to might have been part of an epic series called the 'Many Coloured Land' by Julian May. A bunch of misfits from a time in the near future choose to be 'ostracised' from memory; sent on a one way trip back 65 million years in time, only to discover the world is in the control of a race of telepathic humanoid aliens; the Gods of mythology.
Thanks for the tip about High Sierra, Fractelle. Never been a huge fan of Bogart, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
Rather than highjacking David f's post, perhaps we should start a page on philosophy in the strangest places, as you suggested.
BTW, I duplicated my post on avasay in the OLO general discussion area, under the less than riveting title, Sentimental or Rational. I was really hoping to get greater numbers contributing their opinions.

Grim

That's right! Julian May, Many Coloured Land - I remember enjoying it a lot.

You don't have to be a Bogart fan for this film - it is very good, sort of film noir type western.

I will copy and paste my response to your OLO thread from avasay, because I am lazy but want to help.

I don't suppose you were a Frank Herbert Dune series fan as well?

Apologies Davidf, but sci-fi probably helped with my philosophical development more than anything else. Yeah, no doubt that explains a lot. I find theology interesting up to a point whereupon I fall asleep.

Fractelle:“I adore Terry Pratchett too. And Douglas Adams may he R.I.P. And thanks to secular humanism we are free to read novels like this. While the religious are free to read their bibles, korans, torahs or whatever.”

Loved Dirk Gently. And that Robot series where the Robot ended up being around thousands (maybe) of years later – whatever that was I really liked it. Some detective thing where the robot did it because if you save many you could ignore that law. I’m useless at this aren’t I…

“... I'd rather go watch paint dry.”

You’re probably more used to everyone, might get a bit predictable for you after awhile aye. Personally I am still missing Ginx. And Foxy has swaned off somewhere doing some wine thing, cheek of the woman.

Cheers, Grim. It was The Many Coloured Land. Hey I only got told recently (oh crap, shocking memory) that a sci fi writer I did enjoy started the whole scientologist thing. No idea why people don’t tell me these things sooner so I can have a giggle. He was just yanking a few chains wasn’t he? I know I heard this famous actor and that joined it but is it really about space ships coming?

I liked Dune, don’t think I read them all and each time a new one came out I had to go back and read the rest to remind myself what was happening.

Now I am off to my own debate in the playroom – I am trying to convince a bunch of lisping, can’t even put their own shoes on, stubborn young argumentative midgets that The Hulk was not in fact a bad guy and that no we are not going to all dress up as batman and kill him. This debate has been going for two days and damned if I can persuade them.

Can you imagine me convincing them there is or isn’t a God? You have to be able to understand The Hulk first!

Piper

Could the Robot story be the one titled "I, Robot", by Isaac Asimov, with the positronic brain?

Here's a new debate you can offer the wee ones:

Who would win a fight?

Cavemen or Astronauts?

No special weapons, just what is available in the natural environment.

Personally, I favour the cavemen.

Apologies again Davidf.

“Could the Robot story be the one titled "I, Robot", by Isaac Asimov, with the positronic brain?”

Yeah was… and I saw that Will Smith movie not long ago, wonder if I’ve got that oldtimers thing. Okay Ms Sci Fi… there was another one was about in the rings of Saturn and some weird symbiotic relationship with another being and I think they mined asteroids or something. I remember these things and remember how much I enjoyed reading them, completely absent of facts. See what happens when you don’t have thoughts for over a decade?

Hey another one was like a tree in space and the aliens that lived on this giant tree.

“Personally, I favour the cavemen.”

Aw dunno – spacemen would be taller and they do exercisers and probably know some martial art. I picture cavemen as little and kinda slow in movement which actually probably doesn’t make sense if they had to hunt for food. But people are bigger now aye?

The kids are up late watching a DVD called “Bolt”, I should drag myself over there and have a look cause I know they’re going to want to talk to me about it after and I’ve never seen it. They are bound to act out bits tomorrow too so I should know because I’ve been caught out before jumping to conclusions when it was just acting.

My daughter has taken one 3 year old aside to teach them how to count to ten… the fool. I do it with lollies, they get however many they can count to.[grin] (oops couldn’t post – just so you know they weren’t up this late).

Dear David f,
You gave a good example of why I am suspicious of historical “ifs”. Mental experimentation (c.f. Einstein with his “free falling elevator”) are an acceptable argument in science, at least in physics, but are dubious when related to events, persons, etc belonging to two historically very different contexts or epochs.

I certainly do not think that Paul would have approved of Hitler but we cannot ask him to decide which one of us two is right. As to Marx, thanks for the very interesting details and quotes: as you might remember my knowledge of Marx comes only through the prism of Marx-Leninism. I do not know if Marx could have approved of both Stalin and Hitler, I just know that there are many people calling themselves Marxists who certainly would not.

OK, there is no Jewish race only ethnicity and Hitler persecuted not the Jewish race but ethnic group. I have no preferences in this terminology.

I agree that the conversos were discriminated against, however this was not as universal and did not last as long as the discrimination (and worse) by Christendom of adherents of Judaism. Many of prominent e.g. 20th century Catholics (Aaron Jean-Marie Lustiger, Raisa Maritain, Edith Stein, etc.) were “coversos” and certainly the Church did not discriminate against them. So if there was anti-semitism in some Christian practice, it was just a local and temporary offshoot from anti-Judaism that was unfortunately more entrenched in how Christians saw themselves.

George wrote: So if there was anti-semitism in some Christian practice, it was just a local and temporary offshoot from anti-Judaism that was unfortunately more entrenched in how Christians saw themselves.

Dear George,

You are making a distinction that I don't find important. I really don't care whether Jews were dehumanised, discriminated against, put in ghettoes, tortured and massacred because of anti-semitism or anti-Judaism. The ground was fertile for the anti-semitism of the Nazis because of the years of anti-Judaism of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church signed a concordat which it never broke with Hitler. The Christian churches in Germany with few exceptions supported the Nazis. The Holocaust would not have happened if years of Jew hatred justified by New Testament accounts had not preceded the Holocaust. In my grandmother's village of Eishyshok the local Catholics heard a sermon after the slaughter. On page 594 of There Once was a World:

“On Sunday, September 28, 1941, the tolling of the bells at the bells at the Juryzdyki church called the people to worship, just as it did every Sunday, and the sanctuary was filled to capacity, just as it always was. The pews were lined with people in their Sunday best, which in many cases had been the Sabbath best of their Jewish neighbors, whose homes they had looted. Ostrauskas [the Lithuanian chief of police who had murdered Jewish children by smashing them against stones] was there, and was observed to make confession. While the freshly covered graves were still moving and still spouting blood, the parishioners listened to their priest explain to them that the Jews had at last been called to account for the killing of Christ. The priest himself had not advocated killing them; nor did he approve of the looting of Jewish homes. In fact, at least one account says that he asked any one in the congregation wearing stolen Jewish clothes to leave (although no one did). But he seemed to feel that the murder was understandable. Even if it was wrong, a kind of justice had been done.

Dear George,

You make a distinction that I don't find important when you differentiate anti-semitism from anti-Judaism. It doesn't matter whether Jews were dehumanised, ghettoed, tortured and massacred because of anti-semitism or anti-Judaism. The years of anti-Judaism of the Catholic Church made fertile ground for the anti-semitism of the Nazis .

The Catholic Church signed a concordat with Hitler. The Christian churches in Germany with few exceptions supported the Nazis. The Holocaust would not have happened if years of Jew hatred justified by New Testament accounts had not preceded the Holocaust. In my grandmother's village of Eishyshok the local Catholics heard a sermon after the slaughter. On page 594 of There Once was a World:

“On Sunday, September 28, 1941, the tolling of the bells at the bells at the Juryzdyki church called the people to worship, just as it did every Sunday, and the sanctuary was filled to capacity, just as it always was. The pews were lined with people in their Sunday best, which in many cases had been the Sabbath best of their Jewish neighbors, whose homes they had looted. Ostrauskas [the Lithuanian chief of police who had murdered Jewish children by smashing them against stones] was there, and was observed to make confession. While the freshly covered graves were still moving and still spouting blood, the parishioners listened to their priest explain to them that the Jews had at last been called to account for the killing of Christ. The priest himself had not advocated killing them; nor did he approve of the looting of Jewish homes. In fact, at least one account says that he asked any one in the congregation wearing stolen Jewish clothes to leave (although no one did). But he seemed to feel that the murder was understandable. Even if it was wrong, a kind of justice had been done.”

Lithuania was a multicultural society. There were Crusades against Lithuania for no other reason than the refusal of the pagan ruling house to become Catholic. After great loss of life Lithuania gave in and became Christian in 1386

George,
Long before Jesus or Christianity existed the Jews were continually sought to be destroyed off the face of the Earth (even in Moses time while in Egypt they were seen as an exclusive nation within a nation) and during the time of Christ the Romans tried to exterminate their freedom fighters, so anti-semetic hostilities did not start with Christ Jesus as you believe. However some persons of a pseudo Christian background sought excuse to exterminate people who considered themselves a national tribe within their nation and saw them as dividing their loyalties.

It was not and has never been devout followers of Christ teachings who on the basis of that truth have excited extermination of the Jews. The Bible no where persecutes or calls for eradication of the Jewish people. The only religious writings that do is the Koran and it is stated emphatically and uniquivatly they must be exterminated in the name of Allah. This conflict still exists even today on the basis of Islam. What predominantly Christian nation houses the majority of the Jews today?

Some truth and balance ought to be recorded here!

I guess Philo is right that the Jewish nation suffered persecution long before JC; I suppose their very cohesiveness almost demanded it.
In more recent centuries however, I have always wondered how big a role usury played in the discrimination process.
Whereas Islam continues to condemn usury, Christians also had strict laws against the process since Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple, up until Henry V111 found them as inconvenient as ex wives.
I'm sure Oliver could supply the name of the church philosopher who claimed charging interest was like "charging for the cake, then charging again for the eating of the cake"; escapes me at the moment.
The Jewish law against usury only applied to other Jews. I know Hitler was more than disgruntled that while good Germans (and at least one Austrian) fought and were wounded fighting for their country, the Jews stayed home and 'profiteered' -at least, from his point of view.
In short, how much hatred was because they were 'Christ killers', and how much because they were Shylocks?
This ties in with the class question, on another thread. When a tribe makes laws that discriminate against members of another tribe...

Israeli Massacres:Details and Numbers
details
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/31/israeli-massacres-details-and-numbers/

Although the Image..that Israel distributes about herself is that of an oppressed nation,..it is with heavy hearts..that..these crimes that stand for themselves...revealing the brutality of..and the heartlessness of its soldiers..who seem to have a thirst for blood.

It is for the hope that secular thiests..may see a clearer picture that..these painful facts reveal...in only one racist regime..It is interesting to notice that today’s media..does not dwell on these crimes..as they do..on the other daily hollowcosts arround the world..malay-sia/chine/iraq/pakistan/timour/geogia/gaza...seing a pattern?

They are reported in the news for a week or a day..then swept into the sea of oblivion...Those who attempt to revive the true history of Israel..and other genocides of indigenants..are charged of being anti-Semitic...So with the hope to keep those memories in mind we present..the role of israel/Goliath is more interesting than that of David/muslim's.

The following list of israelie/massacres is by no means exclusive,..but they reflect the nature..of the Zionist occupation of Palestine and Lebanon..and show that massacres and expulsions..that happen in any war,..organized atrocities that have..only one aim,..that is to have a Zionist state which is..‘goyim rein’.

The King David Massacre
The Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh
YEHIDA MASSACRE
KHISAS MASSACRE
QAZAZA MASSACRE
The Semiramis Hotel Massacre
The Massacre at Dair Yasin
NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE
THE TANTURA MASSACRE
BEIT DARAS MASSACRE
THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE
DAWAYMA MASSACRE
HOULA MASSACRE
SHARAFAT MASSACRE
Salha Massacre
The Massacre at Qibya
KAFR QASEM MASSACRE
Khan Yunis Massacre
The Massacre in Gaza City
AL-SAMMOU’ MASSACRE
Aitharoun Massacre
Kawnin Massacre
Hanin Massacre
Bint Jbeil Massacre
Abbasieh Massacre
Adloun Massacre
Saida Massacre
Fakhani Massacre
Beirut Massacre Sabra And Shatila Massacre
Jibsheet Massacre
Sohmor Massacre
Seer Al Garbiah
Maaraka Massacres
Zrariah Massacre
Homeen Al-Tahta Massacre
Jibaa Massacre
Yohmor Massacre
Tiri massacre
Al-Naher Al-Bared Massacre
Ain Al-Hillwee Massacre
OYON QARA MASSACRE
Siddiqine Massacre
AL-AQSA MOSQUE MASSACRE
THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE
THE JABALIA MASSACRE
Aramta Massacre
ERETZ CHECKPOINT MASSACRE
Deir Al-Zahrani Massacre
Nabatiyeh (school bus) Massacre
Mnsuriah Massacre
The Sohmor Second Massacre
Nabatyaih Massacre
Qana Massacre
Trqumia Massacr
Janta Massacre
24 Of June 1999 Massacres
Western Bekaa villages Massacre

Grim,
There is no example of Jesus condemning usury. In fact he used the example of gaining interest on talents comparing its wise use to one's ability to gain more talents. The condemning of the Roman stooges putting taxes on animals to be sacrificed is what Jesus condemned. Give to God what is God's and to Rome what is Rome. In fact Josephus identifies that 300 Jesw were crucified by the Romans along with Jesus at the time for objecting to paying taxes on sanctified temple animals. Jesus by his own words payed taxes to Rome. The Romans were raising money to build a 3 mile water duct into Jerusalem.

Regardless of whether Jesus condemned usury or not, I think Grim has stumbled across an important distinction here. Were (and, perhaps, are) Jews the victims of massacres, pogroms and discrimination because they were 'Christ Killers' or because they were 'Shylocks'?

Certainly in most accounts of the causes of the Holocaust, the Shylock explanation is accepted. A look at the anti-Jewish propaganda that existed at the time shows Shylock types, rather than Jews killing Christ. Thus I would say that the hatred of Jews was, as is often asserted, based more on their apparent prosperity while the rest of Germany floundered than on their religion and history.

As for earlier attacks, I am sure both factors had their part in motivating the attackers. The thing is, the European Jews have always been 'different' but visible. Arabs, Mongols, Huns, Turks, Moors - they have always been 'over there'. Jews have always been part of society but still detached, making them useful scapegoats whenever something goes wrong.

Dear David f,
>>distinction that I don't find important when you differentiate anti-semitism from anti-Judaism<<
I think that somehow relates to your position that you explained in another thread: Although e.g. a German who converts to Islam is still a German, a Jew who becomes an atheist is still a Jew, if the Jew becomes baptised he/she looses his/her Jewish ethnicity whatever else he/she might claim.

>>The Catholic Church signed a concordat with Hitler. The Christian churches in Germany with few exceptions supported the Nazis.<<
Again, true only to a point: The Concordat was signed in 1930 and in spite of that in 1940 Einstein felt compelled to write in the TIMES: “I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

You certainly are more familiar than I with the situation in Lithuania of 1940-1944, and I am afraid your shocking story is not an isolated case. I knew only a few Australian Lithuanians, political refugees, anti-Communists, who remembered the Soviet occupation (when hundreds of thousands of Lithuanians perished or were deported to Siberia). They blamed the Jews for collaboration with the Soviet oppressors.

I do not have personal experience of this but it could partly explains why some Lithuanian Christians partook - passively, but sometimes also actively - in Nazi atrocities. So without wanting to doubt your story, I would find it more typical that such an unworthy priest would see the Jews being “called to account” not for the “killing of Christ” but for their (alleged) collaboration with the Soviet occupiers; not that this would exonerate the priest.

There are Christians who blame Jews for all sorts of things and there are Jews who blame Christians for all sorts of things. And there are those, like myself, who think there is more that (religious) Jews and Christians have in common than what separates them.

Dear George,

You wrote citing me: Although e.g. a German who converts to Islam is still a German, a Jew who becomes an atheist is still a Jew, if the Jew becomes baptised he/she looses his/her Jewish ethnicity whatever else he/she might claim.

We were discussing Lustiger when I wrote it. It depends on who is doing the defining. To me he would no longer be a Jew. To Hitler he still would be a Jew.

Most Jews in Eishyshok were at odds with the Soviet occupiers. Most of the local communists who had fled to Russia before the Soviet occupation and wanted to come back were denied on the basis that they should consider all Russia as their homeland not merely Eishyshok so they were sent to Siberia. This saved their lives. Rabbi Szymen Rozowski was thrown out of his house as were the more affluent Jews. This outraged the Jews who were mostly religious. Some of the well-to-do were deported to Siberia so their lives were also saved.

You also wrote: “. And there are those, like myself, who think there is more that (religious) Jews and Christians have in common than what separates them.”

I agree and disagree with you. Religious Jews and Christians have more in common in the patterns of their lives. However, they are more likely to be personally at odds since the belief systems conflict. Christianity centres on Jesus. To a religious Jew to centre a religion on a man or man-like figure is simply blasphemy. Religious Jews regard that as a denial of monotheism.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Non-religious Jews and Christians might agree on that. A neighbour who said that might offend religious people.

Paul O’Shea in “A Cross too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli” condemns the pope for his silence, but recognises at the same time there was nothing in his experience, education or personality that equipped him to cope with the Nazi reality.

david f
Real stories!
When I went to primary school, the religious teacher, said us that every sunday we have to go to church (compulsary) and asked us to buy special clothes for the church.
My mother bought for me clothes but the cheap one as we was poor!
When the teacher saw my clothes she was very angry and pul with power my shirt and cut it in two pieces!
I returned home crying. It was my first contact with the Cristian world!
The priest of my vilage was my father's friend, they like to drink RAKI, a Greek alkohol and eat sublaki.
On the last Friday before the eastern no one made sublaki or eat meat. The priest and my father brought meat at my home and asked my mother, to make sublaki for them!
My mother was a religious person,her father and grandfather was priests and good humans and she did not like to make sublaki but my father pressed her!
As you understand my father and the priest was not religious persons.. I hated the priest as on sundays he call us not to eat meat and he ate at my home!

During the Junta in Greece, the Greek church had a special unit to hund and punish students who was not very religious persons. The clerics of this unit had the power to enter in exam centres, rooms and zero the tests of non religious students, They zero my exams for Greek universities.
8-9 years before the Greek church asked Greeks to sign a petition and press the government to write the religious on IDs! They wanted to know who is not Greek orthodox and discriminate against them, including non orthodox cristians. In Greece it is extremely difficult to build a catholic church and near imposible to biuld a mosque! According to Greek law they can build only if the Greek bishop give his permision!
As you can understand I am the most religious person in the world!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

There was a Greek fellow in Brisbane who went to work in Sydney. When he came home to visit his mother kept after him to go to church with her, but he didn't want to go. Finally after much prodding he agreed to go. When they got to church he stopped in front of an icon and said in a loud voice, "Can't remember the name, but the face is familiar." After that she let him stay home.

I knew a Greek fellow who was the cultural attache in the London Greek Embassy. He regarded the adoption of Christianity as a great blow to Greek culture.

I like the Greek habit of giving children names like Socrates, Helen, Aristotle and other names predating Christianity, They did not erase the connection with the past as a lot of cultures did when they adopted a new religion. I talked with a Greek priest here in Brisbane about customs in classical Greece. He really seemed to know a lot about it.

I am under the impression that the Orthodox Church was a rallying point for Greeks when the country was under Turkish occupation.

I visited Greece and climbed some of the mountains. I was impressed by the fact there were small shrines in places of great beauty as though the religion included appreciation of nature. I also considered the simplicity of the graves and headstones in Greek cemeteries far more tasteful than the elaborate carvings in Italian cemeteries.

I thought putting a religious designation on IDs was partly a consideration of religious identity as tied up with national identity and not just to discriminate.

At least there is civil marriage in Greece. People cannot get married in Israel unless a clergyman approves.

As far as I am concerned I object to ethnic nationalism and favour separation of religion and state. I prefer the model of the United States in that regard where it is illegal for government money to aid religious schools and the word, God, or any reference to a particular religion is not in the US Constitution.

Philo,

Genetically, what is your understanding regards origins of the Jewish race? Syriac, Cannanite, other? Is it a race that has been persecuted or a caste? Six thousand years isn't long in biology.

O.

Dear David f,

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long
been closely intertwined in America. For example
there is the widely held belief that Americans
are a godly people and that God favours America.

The Pledge of Allegiance declares that the country
is one nation "under God." Its coins declare,
"In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths
of office, party conventions, court room procedures,
and indeed nearly all formal public occasions.
Even the Boy Scouts give a "God and country" award.

Many of the nation's secular symbols also have a
sacred quality - the flag, the eagle, the Constitution
the Bill of Rights, the Statue of Liberty, "America
the Beautiful" "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Political leaders
must always pay at least lip service to religious
beliefs, in fact, every Presidential inaugurational
address makes mention of God...

The actual wording of the First Amendment to the
Constitution is, "Congress shall make no laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." This sentence merely implies that
the state, out of respect for the principle of freedom
of religion, may not favour or penalize one belief
relative to another. However, although the state may
not become involved in religion, there is absolutely
no prohibition against religious participation in the
affairs of state.

Dear Foxy,

The United States has had both waves of scepticism and religiosity. In the nineteenth century Ingersoll was the most popular man in the United States excepting presidents and war heroes. He made an income of $100,000 a year (tremendous at that time) going around the country making speeches questioning religion.

“In God We Trust” only became the motto in 1956 during the Cold War to differentiate the US from the ‘Godless Communists.’ ‘Under God’ was added to the Pledge in 1956 for the same reason. Recent cases have been brought to remove 'under God' as unconstitutional.

Jefferson was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, he told Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

Supreme Court rulings in a suit brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that one may conscientiously refuse to salute the flag. Other cases have upheld the right to burn the flag as an act of protest.

In his inaugural address President Obama characterized the US as a nation composed of “Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and unbelievers”.

On the net see “Great Awakenings” for the waves of religiosity. HRSepCnS is a site devoted to history of the Separation of Church and State.

Dear David f,
>>To Hitler he still would be a Jew<<
I spoke about respecting somebody’s Jewishness. I am sure Hitler would not be respectful of Lustiger’s Jewishness in whatever sense. All Catholics respect Edith Stein’s (ethnic) Jewishness that was part of her identity for which she died, so she was not a martyr in the technical meaning of the word (in spite of the wording of her beatification decision), nevertheless, she is venerated as a saint also because of that.

So please let us agree that I recognise and respect the ethnic Jewishness of Lustiger and Stein (whereas you don't seem to) while you respect (or just prefer?) the version of Christianity professed by bishop Spong (whereas I don't).

You "agree and disagree" that there is more that (religious) Jews and Christians have in common than what separates them. I take this as agreeing that here "more" does not refer to a quantifiable entity that you can measure on a scale, so it is rather subjective. Nevertheless, I prefer to see the glass half full rather than half empty, and I think many Jews and most Christians will see it the same way.

Indeed, Eugenio was the Christian name of Pius XII, and that is the name that Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, took as his own baptismal name as an “act of gratitude to the Pope“, when he converted to Catholicism (for theological reasons, as he put it) after the war.

Dear David f,

President Obama said quite a few things on the
diversity of America but he still ended his
address with, "God Bless America!"

John F. Kennedy's inaugural, captures the idea
that America's social order and historical mission are
specifically sanctioned by God:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with
history the final judge of our deeds, let us
go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing
and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's
work must truly be our own."

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific faith
or political program; they are sufficiently broad to
be acceptable to almost anyone.

Philo,

Usery in NT

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." - Luke 34:35 KJV

Interest? Don't even expect the full principal!

Taxes aside, "sons of the Most High" [sons of God]is an interesting phrase. A "Son" is presumably a special relationship not a term for divinity.

Oliver,
The basis of Christ objections to Judaism is not about race because he was born one of them, but he objected to their legalist religious attitidues and genetic obsession. They say "We are sons of Abraham" but he identified they do not have Abraham's faith attitudes. Jesus teaching is about relationships with all persons based in love eg the Samaritan. It is not about nationalistic observance of religious laws - see Talmud I and II.

Abraham was of Chaldean heritage and birth, but his nationality is not what determined his relationship to God. It was his faith in only one God. Jews have intermarried into many genetic tribes because they have been dispersed several times. However they cling together as an identity, similarly the Lebanese in our society.

They make much of their genetics, but a true Jew in the Abrahamic line (in Jesus concept) is not based in genetics but in their faith. However in pure Abrahamic genetics it cannot be said.

Jesus made more about a persons faith than their genetics. Example: At his inagural speech at the Jewish Synagogue at his hometown Nazareth (Luke 4:14 - 30) he uses the faith of two Gentiles; Naaman of Syria, and the widow of Zarephath, to demonstrate relationship to God is based in faith and not in genetics. This caused the Jews at synagogue to attempt to have him stoned as a cursed teacher of the pure laws of Israel.

They saw Gentiles as unclean as dogs. Jesus later used this attitude when demonstrating the Jews attitude to a Canaanites woman to test her faith. Her genetics did not determine her acceptance by God. Matthew 15: 21 - 28.

I have Orthodox Jews and Rabbi in my relatives and have attended synagogue to hear them still thank God they are not created a woman or a dog. This attitude is abhorrent to Christ.

For those who believe Christians are anti-semetic; what nation established the New Israeli State and what nation supports it? Was it not Christian Britian and America?

Foxy
Americans have had huge problems last fifty years, they are in decline!
They have had a bad health system, they have had huge problems in work places, they have had millions of illigal migrants and rupidly change of population synthesis, they have had a huge number of prisoners and many killed american soldgiers arount the world!
Under these bad conditions for the Americans, especialy for the white Americans they had two choices, to learn and accept the American reality or to try to create a god according to their needs and ask him for support.
The white Americans who have used their brain voted OBAMA, the white Americans who turned to religious, created a god not less crazy from his creators! Usualy American's god is a war god, fighting against Muslims and Satan, the American god is supported from black magic and other exotic creatures imported from African. ask PALIN!
david f
"a consideration of religious identity as tied up with national identity and not just to discriminate" Is not it an other express of extrem nationalism and discrimination? Is not it an other kind of Talibanism in the Cristian world?
Unfortunatly various religious is the biggest source of hate and division on our planet.
There are not biggest hypocrities from the religious leaders. Did you see the empty churches on sundays? Did you see how many churches are for sale?
The question is what to do with Islam, a difficult question!
Israelis have to choices:
1. recognize the reality and give a fair solution to their problem with palestinians and arabs
2. Create a military theocratic state not different from the NAZIs or Talibans. As the synthesis of Israeli population will change and palestinias will become majority the Israelis will not have any other chance than to create their own Dachaou, Ausvits and Mathousen for palestinias this time!
I hope they will accept a fair solution than to drive their self in a hopeless position.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Oliver,
Jesus teaching was to kingdom people in this context. Of assisting a asset rich brother in the faith to be compassioate. Note the comparison in your textual quote, it doesn't condemn gaining interest it merely states to show love to your brother in the faith do not expect all the repayment of principal as he may be struggling to repay. In Israel all debts were cleared in the seventh year.Jesus encoraged "Forgive our debtors as God has forgiven us".

Equally the other person has responsibility to show love by endeavouring to owe no man anything.

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." - Luke 34:35 KJV

However today we live in volitile economic society where every 20 - 30 years prices rise by 100% so a just interest must reflect this increase. However greed and lust have destroyed economic balance.
______________________________________

You said, A "Son" is presumably a special relationship not a term for divinity.

Divinity is the character and nature of one's spirit - i.e. born of God; not by family genetics, or by mere outward observance of religion. (John 1: 12 - 14) Though faith is outwardly demonstrated by compassionate action

Dear George,

I regard Lustiger and Edith Stein differently. Catholics gave Lustiger refuge. That was a good act. Because of circumstances his young impressionable mind was indoctrinated into a faith that alienated him from his people. I regard his life as a tragedy. Edith Stein made a decision to adopt another religion. I can’t argue with her free choice.

Bishop Spong makes more sense to me than other versions of Christianity I am aware of.

Dear Foxy,

Obama, in common with Washington, Kennedy and all other political leaders speaks to his constituency. In so doing all politicians are to some degree insincere in saying what they think their constituency wants them to say. Many politicians when elected say they are humbled. When one is humbled one is brought down in pride or arrogance or decisively defeated according to my dictionary. I pointed that out to a local politician who made that statement after she was elected. She confessed that she was unaware of the dictionary meaning of the word. The references to God are also often expected formula.

Dear Antonios,

I agree with many of your feelings toward religion. However, I do not like inflammatory rhetoric. Keeping a Jew from joining a country club is anti-Semitism. However, it is ridiculous to liken that to Hitler. I am sure that the Greek Orthodox clergy have some prejudices. However, I think bringing in the Taliban is also ridiculous.

Dear Philo,

England supported a Jewish state in the Middle East for more than one reason. In an arrogant act England decided who should own another people’s land. There was some sympathy in England for the Jewish people. There was also the desire to establish a state in the Middle East that in gratitude would be friendly to England. There was also the anti-Semitic motivation that Yids fleeing persecution would come to Israel rather than come to England. There is also that fact that England made promises to the Arabs that contradicted promises made to the Jews. England’s motives were murky, and its actions contradictory.

"However today we live in volitile economic society where every 20 - 30 years prices rise by 100% so a just interest must reflect this increase. However greed and lust have destroyed economic balance."
I wonder why prices increase by 100%, every 20-30 years?
Whether or not Jesus condemned Usury, or what his motivation was for driving the money changers from the Temple, is immaterial to my argument.
The Christian Church had strong laws against Usury for about 1500 years; during which time anyone who wanted to borrow money had to go to a Jewish money lender; from Christian Kings and landlords down.
Was Shakespeare's Shylock hated for his faith, or his insistence on his "pound of flesh"?

Dear Foxy,

More about religion and the founding of the US:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses..." (John Adams, in 1787 from his "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America;" as quoted by Adrienne E. Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society

"Those of our "founding fathers" who participated in the drafting of the Constitution never intended their use of religious illustrations in speeches as more than rhetoric. They knew the dangers of giving constitutional or legal sanction either to civil religion or to Christianity or to any denominational expression. They knew that religious liberty requires freedom from any identification of religion with state action. They were intent on avoiding more than 100 years of religious intolerance and persecution in American colonial history and an even longer heritage of church-state problems in Europe." (John M. Swomley, Religious Liberty and the Secular State: The Constitutional Context, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987, p. 114.)

The tardiness of this contribution might make it seem a little of topic now but here goes.

It seems some here can blithely state that God is a human invention and thus quite dismissible but come on people, what an invention!

I place it with the any of the high humanities that Foxy described, “philosophy, languages,
literature, history and the arts.” Its contribution to the advancement of humankind is immeasurable.

Even on a more basic level I know of people living very ordinary lives, (openly admitting to not having opened a book in decades) who after becoming Christians have found the time to be avid readers of the Bible and other associated literature and am now capable of holding quite deep conversations about the human condition.

I am convinced a true humanist would celebrate mankind’s ability to produce working religions that certainly serve needs within our societies. That there are obvious examples of its misuse should not preclude acknowledgement of its strengths.

Why can’t we place it side by side with romantic love? We can bounce from a discussion about serotonin levels (who wrote ‘Love has its pillars in secretions’?) to the attrition rate of people through murders of passion, but there aren’t many of us who would give up the chance for falling deeply and completely in love with someone and the surrender that entails.

A recent trip with the kids to the Pompeii exhibition was enlightening. Recovered from the ruins where plaster like busts of deceased relatives who were placed on high shelves looking down on the current generation. It is not a great stretch to see the effect an ‘all seeing’ ‘father on high’ might have on behaviour within the household and the powerful advantages to a society of promoting a concurrent set of beliefs.

I think it is obvious from history that humans adapt their religions to serve their societies at the time. In that there is an understandable lag (The Pope might condemn condoms but he is not burning heretics) gives the impression of religion as being out of date, but still an undeniable servant.

Grim wrote: The Christian Church had strong laws against Usury for about 1500 years; during which time anyone who wanted to borrow money had to go to a Jewish money lender; from Christian Kings and landlords down.

Dear Grim,

That is not quite accurate. In 1123 at the Lateran Council the Catholic bishops decided that Christians could not lend each other money. They had done so previously. Slightly earlier the medieval guilds arose excluding Jews so there were no more Jewish goldsmiths, silversmiths and glass-blowers which were Jewish trades up to that time. Jews were also excluded by the Lateran Councils from owning land, holding office, and from being doctors and lawyers.

The money lenders were the support of the Jewish community which was impoverished by its exclusion from other trades. At that time Jews became the only money lenders in Christian Europe. The bishops knew that you have to charge interest to have banking, and you had to have banking to have economic development, otherwise there is no growth and your economy stagnates. Someone had to lend money. That someone, the bishops decided, would be the Jews.

What happened next is that Jews were not allowed to live in various cities in Europe, unless they supplied a certain number of money-lenders. If the local nobleman or bishop decided not to pay the Jew back he'd accuse the Jew of doing something terrible -- like killing a Christian baby. That way he could renege on his loans, confiscate all Jewish property, and then expel or even kill the Jews. That is how Jews were expelled from England in 1290.

Some have claimed that it was Jewish money-lending practices that engendered such actions and, indeed, were responsible for a great deal of anti-Semitism. This is myth. Jews charged an average interest rate of between 33% and 43% on loans. This is high by today's standards, but the Lombards, the Christian Italian bankers living under the nose of the Vatican, charged rates as high as 250%. The Jewish money lending monopoly was a consequence rather than a cause of Christian Jew hatred.

Philo,

Thank you for taking the time to give such a comprehensive and well articulated reply. I will reflect on what you have said.

I am fairly certain that it was claimed on an History channel documentary that the Jews have Arab ancestors.

My comment on the "Son of the Most High" also alluded to the "Son of God" and particularly Jesus, as the same. Are such "Sons" divine or in a special relationship with the divine? I guess that was ebated in the early centuries of the common era.

Dear George,

I had missed reading David f's post about the
atrocities he described in Lithuania - I
only just now read that particular post.
Painful, as it was - and shocking too. You
see, I am of Lithuanian ancestry - and my
family suffered greatly under the Soviet
occupation. My father's brother was massacred
brutally - the doctor who kept the young
man alive - so that his heart would continue to
beat as he was being tortured - was a Jew.
I won't go into the details here - suffice to
say that my uncle's fifteen year old sister
had a complete mental breakdown when she had
to identify her brother's body.
She was sent to Siberia - because of this family
connection.

Anyway, as we know, World War II produced tens of
millions of victims. Some were combatants, some
civilian casualties of the war. Others were victims
of genocide planned by the warring powers. Both
the Nazis and the Communists had committed unheard of
cruelties. Concentration camps -- on both sides of
the front - operated at a high pitch prior to and
during the war years.

The NKVD (KGB) and the Gestapo - both used the same
inhumane methods in their operations. The NKVD and
Gestapo used informers, collaborators and assistants
from among the very people they set out to enslave
or destroy. Some assisted voluntarily, while others
collaborated because of fear or weakness.

There were also, of course, numerous courageous men
and women who refused to participate in the
subjugation and destruction of the targeted groups
and individuals.

There were Jews who interceded with their lives to
save persecuted Christians, there were Christians
who died in their attempts to save Jews. They died,
some along with their entire families, or accepted
their fates in concentration camps rather than
betray their fellow men. Some are known, but most
perished and are known only to God. These heroes
embody nobility in its highest form and stand as
beacons in the otherwise bleak history of World War II.

cont'd ...

cont'd...

Among those who, out of greed or cowardice, chose to
collaborate with the evil minions of the NKVD and
the Gestapo were Christians and Jews, Germans and
Russians, members of all nations caught in the
merciless war. No faith, no nationality, no race was
free of cowards or collaborators.

Some of the villains perished, some were captured
and punished, for the most part shortly after the
conclusion of the war. Others escaped retribution,
dying, as did Stalin and Hitler -- the evil architects
themselves -- without having been brought to justice.

While half of the criminals, the Nazis, have been
pursued all over the world for their crimes, the other
half, the communist criminals, were allowed to go free.

They were in effect, given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concentration camps, to expand
their draconian systems to include psychiatric wards,
thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to a
science. The fact that the process persisted was vividly
disclosed to the free world by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

The subject of the Holocaust in Lithuania exemplifies
the arguments of those who insist that there is no such
thing as "objective history."

In discussing the Holocaust, as in any murder case,
one camp may call for uncompromising indictment of all
deemed guilty, while another, if not denying the guilt
of the "defendant," may argue extenuating circumstances,
ranging from temporary insanity through provocation.
The moment any historian begins to look critically at
motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for
one or another camp of readers.

Survivors and victims' relatives are usually more
interested in condemnation and punishment than in
explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathizing and excusing. The determination to write
indictments in mass killings, however, all too easily
leads onto the questionable practice of stereotyping
nations. In 1941 Jews died as the victims of the
stereotypes that cast them as Communists, and Jewish
survivors of the Holocaust carried stereotypes of their
oppressors with them.

Continued stereotyping of any nation, however, can
encourage "counter-stereotyping" and the result is
usually a complete breakdown in communication.

Dear Foxy,

If we go back far enough all Jews have non-Jewish ancestors, all Christians have non-Christian ancestors and all Muslims have non-Muslim ancestors. Probably the same ancestors and we do horrible things to each other.

In the "Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956" Solzhenitsyn said:

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Dear David f,

I think it was Golda Meir who said,

"Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it."

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn told us that -

"One can rid the world of atrocities only by
refusing to take part in them."

He also wrote about an old Russian proverb that says:

"No, don't! Don't dig up the past!
Dwell on the past and you'll lose an eye."

But the proverb goes on to say:

"Forget the past and you'll lose both eyes!"

Foxy
"I'm having a problem with the term -
'secular humanism.' Is the word
'secular,' really necessary?"
I have problem with the term -
'secular humanism.' too! and I can not understand where is the humanism? Is not hypocricy to call the secular USA as humanistic?
How we can call a secular country as the USA with the highest degree of prisoners in the world, as humanistic?
How we can call a secular country as the USA with the worst welfare and health systen from developed countries, as humanistic?
How we can call a secular country as the USA with so much children's blood in their hands from bietnam or Iraq war as humanistic?
Do they call the marketing studies as humanistic?
Do they call the interogation studies in guantanamo as humanistic?
Do they call the studies how to miximize the productivity or minimize the cost as humanistic?
I feel sick to hear that secular countries as USA with so much violation to human rights and international law are humanists!
At the end it is imposible for me to find who are jumpions in hypocricy religious or secular people!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear David f,
Let me repeat, where we seem to disagree is Lustiger’s right to call himself a Jew in the ethnic, cultural, meaning of the world. There are Australians (e.g. on this OLO) about whom one could say that their “young impressionable mind was indoctrinated into“ losing their Christian faith (as much as I do not like the term indoctrination, in their case it was a kind of “negative indoctrination”, i.e. reaction to incompetent religion instructions they perceived as indoctrination) and some Christians might regard their lives as tragedies. Nevertheless, they are still Australians, in the political as well as cultural meaning of the word.

>> Bishop Spong makes more sense to me than other versions of Christianity I am aware of.<<
This is a very honest statement that resonates with me saying that Lustiger’s book “Choosing God-Chosen by God” made me understand more about Jewish culture, and be sympathetic to it, than other sources I have read.

Dear Foxy,
I am really honoured that you addressed to me this fair - and, I would say, moving - account of the fate of Lithuania (and implicitly also other nations, including Slovakia, where I experienced WWII and its aftermaths) caught in the catch-22 situation between Communists and Nazis. I grew up with the uneasy dilemma (for a child) that on one hand we were yearning for the Americans to come and liberate us from Stalin, on the other hand we were convinced that should they decide so, one of the Comrades’ first precaution would be to deport Catholic intellectuals and their families to Siberia, if not worse (c.f. Katyn).

Explanations can provide extenuating circumstances, but only in extreme cases could they provide excuses. Explaining that the driver did not kill the pedestrian on purpose, but was drunk, does not extenuate him, only shows that his act was not a premeditated murder. I would argue that many - if not most - people co-responsible for the deportations of Jews thought that they were only “ethnically cleansing their homeland” (like what the Czechs and Poles did with their German populations after WWII). As abhorrent as this is, it is not the same as knowingly send them to a death camp.

I agree, one should not “forget the past” but I think one should forget to “retaliate” (a nice word for revenge), that I was horrified to hear even from the lips of the American President after 9/11 (of course, nobody could object had he kept referring only to defence). The only way to break this vicious tit-for-tat circle of sweeping accusations (stereotyping nations as you call it), retaliations, self-righteous urge to punish, etc., is to unilaterally stop with it. Even Christians forget too often that they are forbidden to retaliate. Defence yes, retaliation no.

Dear George,

Thank You for your kind words, and understanding.

It's very heartening to read that you understood
exactly what I was trying to say. I learned from
my father to love not hate - and above all to
forgive.

Judith Wright wrote, "For a time it seemed that the
shock of realising the terrible power of total
destruction we now possessed had sobered the
war makers. Then in 1950 came the Korean war,
and a year or two later the first hydrogen bomb
was tested... The tests continued, obliterating
islands in the Pacific. Human values seemed to
vanish with them..."

As you point out - look at what's happened in the
world since ... I've stated so many times in
previous posts - I fear that our world can become
so obsessed with the problems of hatred and
aggression, that it will allow peace and love to
be regarded as soft and weak. Yet our survival depends
on their dominance.

Dear George,

Lustiger could call himself anything he wants to. However, to me he was no longer a Jew. I have read more about him since I wrote last, and he apparently was genuinely attracted to Christianity. I take back what I said about a “young impressionable mind was indoctrinated into“ losing his faith. He really was ignorant of Judaism, and his parents were really not connected with it.

However, I wonder where he would get enough knowledge of Jewish culture to write about it. His education was Christian. He had little to do with the Jewish milieu. Christians can have a great deal of knowledge of Jewish culture if they experience it and live among Jews. James Joyce was an Irish Catholic, but he had close relationships with Jews and his fictional character, Leopold Bloom, in "Ulysses" is very Jewish. James Joyce, George Eliot, Iris Murdoch and other non-Jewish writers have created believable Jewish characters because they had the knowledge and association. However, to the best of my knowledge, Lustiger could not have obtained that knowledge from what I read of his life on the net. He was just another Christian writing about Jews. He had only peripheral contacts with Jews. Culture is something one lives with. It is not genetic.

His bio on the net contained: "He considered Christianity to be the accomplishment of Judaism, and the New Testament to be the logical continuation of the Old Testament. In Le Choix de Dieu (The Choice of God, 1987), he declared that modern anti-Semitism was the product of the Enlightenment, whose philosophy he attacked."

The first sentence contains the replacement idea that "Christianity to be the accomplishment of Judaism." I see that as a source of anti-Semitism. Some Christians see Judaism as not a religion in itself. To them it is merely a way station on the road to Christianity. Apparently he was another Christian bigot. There were and are many.

My view of the Enlightenment is that it was a tremendously liberating force.

ASymeonakis,

I suspect that many refer to the United States, as "secular", because its institutions (unlike the Arab countries) are -in theory at least- non-religious and that there is separation between church and state (as a product of the Enlightenment). Nonetheless, this is an ideal and not always practised.

In England, that nation, seems nominally secular, because the Crown is Anglican and upward mobility would be harder for Catholics than Protestants.

Secular humanism would have morals self-evident and stand alone. An unconditional positive regard for our fellow humans (Carl Rogers).

Secular humanists are those whom condemn the deeds of Christian, Islamic and non-humanist secular institutions in history. Likewise, I suspect, there are Christian humanists and Islamic humanists that would condemn most of their leaders in history.

Only, I find that a secularist would be more readliy criticise Stalin, than might Catholics their Popes. I guess, for most secularists, Stalin isn't apart of their belief system, so there is no pressure to make excuses; whereas for a Catholic, Popes are a part of their belief system, and, for this reason, the many acrocities of the Church are given minor recognition. Ditto of the other religions.

David f, I agree with many of your points, but not all.
There is some evidence to suggest that the very early Christians used a 'tit for tat' approach to money lending; as the Jews were forbidden to lend at interest to other Jews but not to gentiles, so the Christians would only lend at interest to Jews.
In the fourth century, the clergy were forbidden to lend at 'usury'; this was extended to the laity in the fifth century.
In the middle ages, European kings effectively allowed themselves to 'own' Jews. As you have indicated, they were excluded from many guilds, and thus were effectively forced into the money lending business. When the Jew died, or was found to have made a transgression (like allegedly sacrificing a Christian child to the Devil) the King took his possessions. At at least one point, medieval kings demanded compensation from the Pope for loss, when one of their Jews was converted.
As you say, the Jews were replaced in the financial world by the Lombards, and Florentine bankers. These organisations did not (technically) charge interest. Instead, they imposed 'conditionalities' and compensations, including insurance against non payment.
As to whether the hatred of Jews was because of moneylending is a myth or not is debatable. This is to deny the influence writers and playwrights such as Shakespeare had on their audience. Just as the tax collectors rather than the publicans were despised in Jesus' day, it would have been easy for medieval squires to blame the Jews, when they put rents up.
I would suggest discrimination of any kind can engender hostility in simple minds. Today, students and people on social security are invariably asked: “are you an aboriginal, or Torres Strait Islander”. My own daughter has complained about not being aboriginal, as she has friends who get more financial support -as students- than she.
And the land rights issue really brought the rednecks out of the woodworks.

Just as an aside, might I say That the true Christian spirit does not despise tax collectors. It does despise greed, thieft, violence etc as practised by some Roman officials of Jesus time.

But Matthew writer of the first gospel in the Cannon was himself a tax collector.

Dear Foxy,
I wish I could have known your father. A couple of years ago I met some friends from times bygone when we were students in Prague. We reminisced, mentioning old names, when I suddenly realised I could no more remember the name of the University administrator on whose initiative I was sacked (they found out I was “religious” so I was not allowed to teach). I am still “proud“ of this loss of my memory.

Dear David f,
>> to me he was no longer a Jew <<
I understand this, since you do not accept Jewish ethnicity independent of the person‘s religion. To me an Australian, whose parents were Italian, hence grew up in an Italian environment, is an Australian of Italian ethnicity, even if he/she does not have “enough knowledge of Italian culture“, and, of course irrespective of his/her religion.

As for religion, Lustiger as a professional would know enough about Judaism and Jewish theology, irrespective of his Jewish ethnicity, in the same sense that e.g. a Chief Rabbi in a European country would know more about Christianity or Catholic theology than an average Catholic. Of course, Lustiger as a Christian - even a Christian “dignitary“ - would interpret the relation between Judaism and Christianity from a Christian point of view, the same as a rabbi would interpret it from a Jewish point of view. To correlate these interpretations, to decide where they can agree and where they have to agree to disagree, should be left to the specialists on both sides of the dialogue. I am certainly not a specialist on theology, Christian or Jewish.

(Martin Buber wittily pointed out that both religious Jews and Christians are awaiting the coming of the Messiah, only that for Jews it would be the first, for Christians the second, coming.)

Please let us leave it at that. I indeed appreciate it when you do not make sweeping statements like many others, but present interpretations of facts as your personal view.

Dear Grim,

If there had been unremitting hostility to the Jews as there was to the Albigenses they would have disappeared as the Albigenses disappeared. A book on that subject is "An Unacknowledged Harmony: Philo-Semitism and the Survival of European Jewry" by Alan Edelstein.

However, the hatred predated the money lending aspect. The money lending exacerbated the feeling but was not the source.

The source of anti-Semitism was Christianity which competed with Jews for market share of converts. The New Testament is a document that contains hostility to Jews even though Jesus was one. Some Christians chose to favour Jews as the people of Jesus. Anti-Semitism is almost unknown outside Christendom and Islam. My father fled Russia and lived in both China and Japan ninety years ago. He loved Japan. The people were friendly, and he worked in Kobe and Osaka. He was just another red headed, blue-eyed European. His Jewishness was not important to either the Chinese or Japanese.

Christianity was more a missionary religion than Judaism and was intolerant to those who refused its message. This scenario has been played over and over. Missionaries have attempted to convert Jews. Often they were murdered or had to flee when they refused. Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 found refuge in Poland and Ottoman Turkey. Until most of Poland was absorbed by Russia Jews lived well in Poland. Lithuania was a place of refuge being multicultural and with a non-Christian ruling class until 1386.

The Polish nobility wanted to keep the peasants in their place but were not too literate and needed a middle class. Jews were literate and could not aspire to the nobility so they were no competition. The nobility invited Jews to settle. Jews managed the estates, collected taxes and performed all the other middle class functions. In general peasants hated them.

Stanislaw Poniatowski, the last king of Poland, wanted to make Poland a democracy with education for all, universal suffrage and other goodies. This alarmed despotic Russia, Prussia and Austria who divided Poland between them. Czarist Russia was not good for the Jews.

Oliver
For me is hypocricy to call a system humanistc ONLY because it is secular, I am interested for a humanistic system than for a secular brutal system as the former USSR.
Some seculars use emppty words, play mind games and try to prove that the black is white!
It is imposible for me to accept that the secular America is humanistic! I saw last year in TV a man shot an other man on a main road in the midle of the day, hundrends of drivers saw the wounded man and none helped him or phoned to police or ambulance! Do we call this kind of society humanistic? I do not care at all for this kind of secular system!
It is time to learn to say say the truths, Secularism does not mean humanism may be it means barbarians!
At the end, all words will lose their meaning!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear George,

For some reason it is important to make myself understood to you.

I accept Jewish ethnicity apart from religion. I consider the Chief Rabbi of Rome who converted to Catholicism ethnically still a Jew since he had been part of the community for many years and knew the community. Religious conversion does not erase this. I have changed some of my positions due to our interchange.

However, it is completely unacceptable to Jews to be told Catholicism is the completion of Judaism. Protestantism is not the completion of Catholicism even though Protestantism has much more in common with Catholicism than Catholicism has with Judaism. Whatever his ethnicity Lustiger was a Christian bigot.

My cousin, Renata, from Trieste although not a Catholic and living in the United States is still Italian since she was part of that community and maintains links.

Apparently there is no such thing as Swiss ethnicity. Italian, German and French Swiss each have their own ethnic associations in Australia and have nothing to do with Swiss of other ethnicities.

Dear Grim,

It is doubtful that Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) ever knew a Jew. They were expelled from England in 1290 and readmitted under Cromwell in 1656. Even though he didn't know Jews and was exposed to the prejudices of his day Shakespeare recognised the humanity of Shylock unlike other depictions of Jews at the time such as "The Jew of Malta" that portrayed Jews as totally debased.

Shylock:

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? - fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

Dear David f,

I agree with you - Shakespeare probably didn't
know any Jews. He was born 1564 and died 1616.
However we need to remember that in Shakespeare's
time, both the church and the state considered
moneylending at high interest a crime. Shylock
was thus a natural object of scorn. On the surface,
Shakespeare's views of Shylock reflected the
attitudes of the day. But as you point out - the
dramatist treated the moneylender as a very human
and even sympathetic person - by providing him
with an eloquent statement of how it feels to be
part of a harshly treated minority. "If you prick
us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not
laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you
wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

This balances Portia's speech beautifully:

"The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown
His scepter shows the force of temporal power
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself'
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice..."

The first followers of Christ were Jews and had their lives threatened by the Jewish Zealots. The Jew Saul of Tarsus was recognised for seizing Christ followeres and having them put to death on religious grounds. Saul (a Jewish name) after his conversion was identified as Paul (a Gentile name) on his missionary journeys into Gentile provinces.

His primary persecuters were probably among his former Jewish zealot friends; who finally took a case to Rome and had Paul tried and put to death on religious grounds. Paul was in his early life a cohort of or murderer of Christians - eg. Stephen. A read of Foxes Book of Martyrs identifies Christians as not retaliating against their persecuters as they wanted to die upholding the surrender attitude of their Lord - and allowed false accusation to be made against them.

Dear davidf ,

When you make statements such as;

“Hitler was a Christian who used the hate inspired by hundreds of centuries of Christian bigotry to order the Holocaust which was applied Christianity.”

You are not telling the whole story by any means. Part of the tale has to be that your lot bred like crazy in Eastern Europe especially in the Russian Pale of Settlement “whose Jewish population rose from 1.6 million in 1820 to 4 million in 1880 and some 5.6 million by 1910.” This was twice the rate of the rest of the world.

Marrying and having children early along with religious laws of hygiene played their parts in the size and survivability of Jewish families but still the numbers put serious downward pressure on living standards. The great migration of nearly a third of the Jews of the region between 1881 and 1914 to the west created dire problems even in established Jewish communities often because of cultural differences of the immigrants. In Britain by 1914 the newcomers had outnumbered the native Jews by five to one. In the US the Jewish population went from one million in 1900 to 2.3 million by 1914.

I suppose we should reflect on what issues would arise or be heighten if our 200,000 strong Lebanese community was bolstered by an extra one million immigrants with few English skills in a little over a decade. Throw in an economic meltdown and a far superior orator than Pauline and who knows what insanity our own country might be capable of.

Therefore davidf I am not seeking to downplay the role of Christianity in the Holocaust since I have used that line of argument myself. The planes that bombed the ghettos, the trucks that transported Jews to the camps, even the medals that hung around the necks of the bravest German soldiers, all advertised the cross.

Rather I am with respect making the point that you are in danger of directing the same stereotyping and sweeping generalisations toward Christianity that you would condemn them of directing at Jews.

Dear David f,
>>For some reason it is important to make myself understood to you.<<
I appreciate this. I am aware that the Catholic position is unacceptable to you. Without wanting to get into theological disputes - where, as I wrote before, I am anything but an expert - Christians, including Catholics, view Jews as their older brothers, the common “father“ being Judaism of the times before Jesus (or Paul, if you like).

Both the older and the younger brothers see themselves as their father’s sole heirs, as a natural continuation, (accomplishment if you like), of ancient Judaism. (Something similar to Catholics and Protestants who both see themselves as the natural continuation of pre-Reformation Christianity, not of each other. Bifurcations happen in cultural, not only biological, evolution.) This mutual exclusiveness of their positions can lead to theological conflicts (and worse) as in the past, or to a theological dialogue acknowledging and respecting the differences, including the basic one that Martin Buber expressed so eloquently.

I can hear and respect your sentiments, however I do not think calling an Archbishop (or a Chief Rabbi for that matter) bigoted just because he expressed and defended the other side‘s position, is very helpful for this dialogue that - let me repeat - should better be left to theologians from both sides.

csteele wrote: "Rather I am with respect making the point that you are in danger of directing the same stereotyping and sweeping generalisations toward Christianity that you would condemn them of directing at Jews."

He objected to my statement: “Hitler was a Christian who used the hate inspired by hundreds of centuries of Christian bigotry to order the Holocaust which was applied Christianity.”

To call the Holocaust 'applied Christianity' is inflammatory, and I apologise for it. It was unnecessary and a sweeping generalisation. The Nazis also wiped out the Gypsies whose religion had nothing to do with the Nazi genocide directed toward them. However, regarding Jews, the Nazis built on the existing Jew hatred promoted by Christianity.

The downward trend in living standards in eastern Europe was caused to a large extent by policies of the Russian government. I have been doing research into my family history. I think my great-grandfather was a farm boy as a child in southern Lithuania which was then part of czarist Russia. However, his father was driven off his farm by the Russian government which gave his land to freed serfs. Jews were not only expelled from their farms. They were also expelled from their villages leaving them homeless. The avowed czarist policy was to get rid of their Jewish population by "one-third converted to Russian Orthodoxy, one-third exterminated and one-third emigrating." The main impetus for the Jewish emigrations from 1881 to 1914 was not the birthrate but the pogroms orchestrated by the Russian government, the first in Kishinev in 1881 and the desperation of people robbed of a chance for a decent livelihood also by government action.

Csteele’s statement,‘your lot bred like crazy’, is a bit of inflammatory language. However, people living in poverty do have more children in the hope that some of them will survive and care for them in their old age. That is what is happening in the underdeveloped world today. It is still going on. Israelis are in general more prosperous than the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have a much higher birthrate.

Dear George,

You wrote: I can hear and respect your sentiments, however I do not think calling an Archbishop (or a Chief Rabbi for that matter) bigoted just because he expressed and defended the other side‘s position, is very helpful for this dialogue that - let me repeat - should better be left to theologians from both sides.

You have lost me here. I called Lustiger a bigot. I did not call him a bigot because he defended the Jewish position. He did not.

In Sydney Anglican Archbishop Jensen heads the Archdiocese. He has referred to non-Christian religions as 'tools of Satan.' Jensen is both a theologian and a cleric in an important ecclesiastical role. However, he is still a bigot.

The spiritual head of Shas Party in Israel, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, has called Palestinians 'snakes'. He is also a theologian and a bigot.

When someone makes a bigoted remark or expresses a bigoted attitude I really don't care if he is a theologian.

Dear David f,
Apologies. Of course, you are right, that was a very silly formulation. The “other” in the sentence you quoted was in reference to the accuser, not the Archbishop (or Rabbi). There are archbishops (and rabbis) who make silly, if you like bigoted, pronouncements of their own (e.g. the ill-famed bishop Williamson), however Lustiger represented - by his position as well as by the statement you quoted - the official position of the Catholic Church, meaning - more or less - that the Messiah has already arrived. Of course, that is a position that no rabbi would agree with, nevertheless I do not see it as bigoted or offensive, the same as I do not see it offensive when a rabbi says that Jesus was just one of many Jewish prophets or that Christianity was founded by Paul.

On my first Christmas in the “free world”, THE AGE (I think) published side-by-side four accounts of Christmas and Jesus: The Catholic position I knew, the Protestant position was too over-intellectualised for my taste at that time (my taste has changed since then), the Atheist just reminded me of all the clichés I knew from my Communist schooling. It was the Jewish position that I found must insightful, not that it would make me convert, but because it shed new lights on my preferred world-view.

Much of this topic's postings are in what I call "anchored reasoning".
By that I mean they are bounded (anchored) to our personal prejudices,and 'western assumptions,.
Truth and true Philosophy are neither.
To illustrate my point apply "the simple minded ET anthropologist test".
i.e. What would an ET anthropologist make of the discussion given that they didn't have our clearly irrational/bias laden preconditioning.
One example that comes to mind is the dictum that states "atheism and anti-Semitism clearly emanate from Christianity"

In reality both emanate from our animal instinctual origins. What is less clear is the origins (substance) for our JUSTIFICATIONS.

Many of the 'explanation' are what one may call self-referential proofs. i.e. This fact is true because X (who has the same biases has rationalised it thus). In reality this is merely adding and or re-birthing several layers of fundamentalist rationale under different labeling.

I use the term "secular humanism" rather than "humanism" to differentiate and amplify between the earlier term 'humanism' which came with connotations of the "spirituality" of humans.
This aspect of spirituality assumes some level of separateness/superiority(?) from the rest of creation.

The afore mentioned Shamanism maintains the connection but has at it's base a concept of appeasement of natural forces by ritual etc.

While Shamanism doesn't have a ridiculously paternalistic 'supernatural' God(s) it is flawed in that its underlying assumption is that we can alter/influence our reality by rituals etc.

As a secular humanist I reason that our 'earthly' meaning is intrinsic in our existence. All other “big” issues are unknowable and therefore irrelevant/simply pander to our human arrogance (that we matter) or insecurity (in that we need to control by being able to explain/justify.).

Foxy I remember posting an intrinsic purpose some time back.

Dear George,

You wrote: 'not that it would make me convert'

Vinoba Bhave, a Hindu holy man, advocated vertical conversion. Every religion is complex with many strands duplicated in other religions. He advocated looking deeper in your own religion to find what you are looking for before you convert to another. You no doubt have bonded with your Catholic fellows not only in belief but a shared culture, heritage and history. Catholicism as all other existing religions is a growing, changing entity. Why should you give that up even if you found some things in Judaism that you could accept? There are new insights, new doctrines and even new intellectual adventures. No living religion can be complete. My hackles rose when I heard Lustiger talked about Catholicism as a completion of Judaism.

You could convert to Judaism but that would not create a magic change where you would become culturally Jewish. I think that is consistent with your previous thought.

The Messiah is really not a concept central to Judaism. It is a myth starting after the kingdom of Solomon split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Jews were hoping for a figure to unite Israel and Judah and restore the kingdom of David and Solomon. The myth grew until the messiah became regarded as someone who would usher in the Messianic Age as mentioned in Isaiah where "swords would be beaten into plowshares" and "nations would study war no more" Jesus has not ushered in the Messianic Era so he really can't be the Messiah according to Jewish tradition.

Jesus is, I believe, central to Christianity. However, the Messiah is not central to Judaism although some Jews believe in the coming of the Messiah. My grandmother used to say, “When the Messiah comes.” By that she meant “never.”

Lustiger not only spoke from a Catholic tradition. He showed his ignorance of Judaism. Many rabbis simply do not care one way or the other about a Messiah. If Lustiger reduced the difference between Catholicism and Judaism to that he showed his profound ignorance of Judaism.

Dear David f,
>> He showed his ignorance of Judaism. Many rabbis simply do not care one way or the other about a Messiah. If Lustiger reduced the difference between Catholicism and Judaism to that he showed his profound ignorance of Judaism.<<

You obviously know better than I how many rabbis literally "believe in the coming of the Messiah" or how many of them consider the Messiah myth, if you like, important in Judaism (two different things). Martin Buber obviously did, though he might not have believed in its literal meaning. Clearly, some Jews do, and it is with them that Lustiger resonated, even if you call him ignorant (using alternative interpretations of facts is not what I would call ignorance) of what belongs also to the resources of Catholic theology that was his job to understand.

So again, please accept that I am not an expert on theology of the one or the other kind, and that as far as Catholic-Jewish relations are concerned I am more inspired by Lustiger, (and Jews like Rabbi Israel Singer, c.f. http://jta.org/news/article/2007/08/06/103467/lustigerjews), than by Spong digging up bones of contention buried by history.

Dear davidf,

Since I placed the words “bred like crazy” in my post with every intention of making a point about sweeping generalizations it would be rather hypocritical for me to apologise I won’t, absolutely no malice intended though.

That the infant mortality rates among the community were notably lower than other groups in similar trying economic circumstances reflected well on the Eastern European Jewry.

You wrote;

“However, people living in poverty do have more children in the hope that some of them will survive and care for them in their old age. That is what is happening in the underdeveloped world today. It is still going on. Israelis are in general more prosperous than the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have a much higher birthrate.”

I’m not confident this strictly applies. I would claim the religiosity of a people plays a large part in determining family size. Certainly the Jews of the Pale were a devout lot, the Irish vs the Anglicans is another example, and my current fundamentalist Christian in-laws are definitely breeding like rabbits.

Further I don’t care how poor families are I struggle with the notion that a conscious decision is ever made to have a large family to ensure a higher chance of survivors being able to give parents a more comfortable retirement. Another sweeping generalisation?

You discussed with Grim the landlord role played by Jews on behalf of the Polish nobility which would have drawn hatred from the peasantry, there are further consideration. Jews were also given the monopoly on rural retail liquor sales as well as holding the long term leases on the taverns in the villages. “Whenever a Polish or Ukrainian peasant wanted his necessary shot of vodka, he had to buy it from a Jewish tavern owner, whose markup in this monopoly situation was lucrative” Norman Cantor - A History of the Jews.

A final point, if we accept that God is a human construct driven by human nature then doesn’t your initial point:3 still apply even if he is used for the propagation of the community’s moral code?

Dear George,

The url you cited quoted Lustiger as saying:

“For me, the vocation of Israel is bringing light to the goyim,” he said, referring to the Hebrew term for non-Jews. “That is my hope, and I believe that Christianity is the means for achieving it.”

In that he is saying something that many Jews say. I have even heard Jews talk about Israel being a light among nations. I think it is a 'holier-than-thou' statement regardless of whether a Jew or Christian says it. I think it is much better to just try to do the best we can and live righteous lives without thinking of ourselves as good examples or bringing light to others. There is a mindset in both Christianity and Judaism that we are set on earth to enlighten others in darkness. I regard it as arrogance. I believe other than you do. However, I have no reason to think that makes me any better than you or that I lead a more worthwhile life than you.

Dear csteele,

Whether a generalisation is sweeping or not is moot. I think religiosity in itself determining family size is a sweeping generalisation. However, particular religious concepts might. I think Judaism, Christianity and Islam all think of children as blessings from God. Therefore a devout Jew, Christian or Muslim might have many children. However, Manichaeism which is a religion that once spread from Spain to China and only died out in the eighteenth century held that sexual relations are good as bonding but sinful as reproduction. This is counter to the JCI view. I doubt that devout Manichaeists had large families. maybe that is one reason why they died out.

Certainly .3 still applies if we accept that God is a human construct. Some religions take moral values that have been developed by the community and gives them divine sanction. Stealing and murder are not good ways to live in a community. So we can say that the prohibition against such behaviour comes from God. However, all religions do not contain moral injunctions.

I'm reminded of something I read of one of the early (Arab) OPEC oil ministers, about conditions in his country before the discovery of oil: "we were very poor. It was common for families to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might survive".
The statistical evidence that child birth rates drop as a nation becomes more affluent (and infant mortality rates drop) are pretty much inarguable. Several factors have been claimed; infant mortality (<4%) female education, etc. I don't recall any suggestion that religion of any kind has played a part, although it could be argued that a better educated population tends to be less religious.
I have come to think that simple pragmatism plays a big part. When education becomes compulsory, children start to be a cost, rather than an asset.
Except in today's Australia, where a depressing number of young girls appear to be regarding babies as being once again a financial asset.
If it appears that I always look for simple answers to complex questions, it's probably true. I've always been a big fan of Ockham.

Dear David f,
>>There is a mindset in both Christianity and Judaism that we are set on earth to enlighten others in darkness. I regard it as arrogance.<<

There are many people, not only Christians and Jews (also on this OLO) who think they "are set on earth to enlighten others in darkness". It can be called an arrogance only if it is done by force or by denigrating those I think do not want to see things my way (like calling him/her immoral, irresponsible, irrational, indoctrinated, superstitious etc.).

Some people advertise products they want to sell, some give medical advise to those who they think need it, some try to convince you that only their political party has the right programme, and some think that their philosophy of life and seeing reality could benefit others as well. These are all justified and normal ways of communication, provided you do not use force (physical, legal, psychological etc.) to impose your convictions and point of view on others.

"It is understandable that a man may seek but not find; it is understandable that a man may deny; but it is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe" (Karol Wojtyla, later John Paul II, 1978). I think many Jews, and others, will see it the same way, especially if one adds "or not to believe".

Dear George,

I think there are bad ideas in Judaism, Christianity and Marxism and think they are some of the same bad ideas.

I think one bad idea is regarding faith in unprovable propositions as somehow the truth that other people should follow. I think it is arrogance even when not done by force or without denigrating those who think otherwise. It can close one’s mind to new ideas and new experiences. In that it is harmful since one is limited in life.

I agree with John Paul II's saying. It is an imposition to tell someone you are forbidden to believe. However, a belief is not a truth regardless of how strongly you believe it. If a belief is just a belief and not translated into action then a person has a perfect right to believe whatever they want. However, even if they have that right merely holding a belief can be harmful.

A belief in Creationism or Intelligent Design is not conducive for learning about the life sciences.

Beliefs translated into action can be quite harmful.

The belief that some Jews have that God has given them a certain area in the Middle East is a source of conflict. The belief that the Catholic Church has that use of condoms is bad contributes to the spread of AIDS and interferes with population planning programs.

I think the idea of a Chosen People is a very bad idea. It was possibly adopted by an ancient people because they felt threatened by the much more powerful empires around them. This bad idea was not dropped but picked up by racists (superior races), Christians (the new chosen), Marxists (the proletariat) and others. One reason I like Spong’s attitude is that he can take these ideas sanctioned by years of usage and examine them anew.

I also think the ideas of original sin and the Messiah or a Messianic era are bad ideas. I wish Pelagius had won out over Augustine

Dear David f,

Dr Leonie Star writes in the Foreword to Dr Barbara
Thiering's book, "Jesus The Man," :

"The views of innovative thinkers add value to
every society. Only by questioning traditional
beliefs can those beliefs be either reaffirmed
or modified..."

Dr Thering also states:

"...There are times when a religion moves away
from its traditional objectifications, and yet
survives, finding new forms of expression.
As disturbing as it is (to some) when the old
moulds of faith have become too worn and have
to be discarded, the vitality of the human
religious spirit is such that it will always find
new words, new images, new symbols..."

Dear David f,
I am glad we moved away from Lustiger. May I return your compliment by saying that “for some reason it is important to make myself understood to you“.

I would not enter into polemics with runner or his atheist counterparts, whose objections to e.g. tenets of Christianity often sound like objections to (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2, because “logic” tells us that you can add only numbers, not letters. You are different, even those who do not agree with you can learn from you.

The English language - in distinction to e.g. German or Slavic languages - can distinguish between religious faith (as a state or disposition of mind) and religious beliefs (as what is called “intellectual consent”).

Without attempting to define religion - it somehow encompasses both belief and faith - let me repeat what I had already written, namely that I see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its purpose or why it is there at all.

Taking the philosopher‘s point of view (but always aware of the six others) there are in principle only two presuppositions: Either - as Carl Sagan put it - the physical universe is all there is, without cause and without purpose, or that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe, which has no cause and no purpose.

There is no rational way to decide a priori in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments, including rational ones, that can support one’s preconceived preference. One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer this preference comes from aspects of religion that belong to the realms of the other six “blind men”. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> faith in unprovable propositions as somehow the truth that other people should follow<<

This lumps together a number of things. As you know, “unprovable propositions” are either stated a priori, called axioms, postulates, presuppositions, etc., and no treatise can do without them, or they are a posteriori statements within a coherent treatise, and Goedel has shown that even mathematics cannot do without them.

Religious beliefs are more of the first kind. They differ from axioms in mathematics in that they are not built on words with no intrinsic meaning attached, but that concepts entering into them - although often of symbolic or “mythological” character - convey a meaning that depends on the believer’s education, emotions, cultural environment etc., a meaning that is not universally accepted.

Nevertheless, to ask a believer to prove the tenets his/her world-view is built on, is like asking a mathematician to prove the axioms he builds his/her theory on. The intellectually unsophisticated believer will take all concepts and statements of his/her belief verbatim, stripped of their symbolic meaning often contradicting science or just common sense. (This is perhaps not unlike those who cannot understand the formal, symbolic meaning of mathematical concepts and speak e.g. of “ideal circles” made of physical matter, perfectly homogeneous, no atoms, etc.)

The concept of truth is complicated, unless you understand it in its trivial meaning, which is too narrow to answer world-view questions. There is formal truth, that logic, mathematics and your computer deal with, there is Truth in the metaphysical or religious meaning of the word that religions make statements about (and that is our bone of contention), and truth as a working scientist, especially mathematical physicist, understands it, truth that his/her theories can hopefully better and better approximate .

We cannot relive our history removing things we do not like today. We can only hope that humanity evolves further, directed less by the “blind watchmaker“ of biological evolution, and more by the “software“ of reason and free will, that I think should be guided, but not dictated to, by higher religions.

George thoughtful comment.
Have we as yet concluded the only truth is secular humanism and all will ultimately bow to its superiority? Or are we to conclude it ranks like all other "isms" as merely a position of belief? and we allow everyone a democratic belief systems?

Dear Philo,

If one is a secular humanist wouldn't it go against
their ethos to not allow democratic belief systems?

George
"there is Truth in the metaphysical or religious meaning of the word"
Is metaphysical truth, truly truth or just a truth of our fantazy?
Personaly I am not sure if what I see or touch is truly truth or only a part of the truth.
You are very lucky if you can create truths from your fantazies. BUT while you are lucky for the fake truths, your believers should worry very much for this kind of truths!
Please ask david f for the HUMANISM (secular) I think you have good points for this kind of hypocricies, fantazies and mind games!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"Nevertheless, to ask a believer to prove the tenets his/her world-view is built on, is like asking a mathematician to prove the axioms he builds his/her theory on."
I wonder, are the words 'unprovable' and 'not dis proven' synonymous? Axioms continue to be accepted, because they continue to work.
Religious belief appears remarkably selective in whom it works for, and whom it doesn't.
Weren't some of the last words of Jesus: "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Dear George,

You wrote: "Nevertheless, to ask a believer to prove the tenets his/her world-view is built on, is like asking a mathematician to prove the axioms he builds his/her theory on."

I agree. However, my statement was: "I think one bad idea is regarding faith in unprovable propositions as somehow the truth that other people should follow."

I didn’t ask that believers prove their worldview. I see it as a right for religious people to have their worldview without having any obligation to prove it. I see it as unreasonable to expect other people to also believe that worldview. Mathematicians do not claim their axioms are true. They are merely a series of propositions one can build a system on.

Girolamo Saccheri (1667–1733) was a brilliant Jesuit. He decided to prove the Euclidean parallel postulate that is one of the foundations that Euclid built his system on is independent of the other axioms. The parallel postulate stated simply is: Only one line can be drawn parallel to a given line through a point not on that line.

Two lines are parallel if there is a plane on which they both lie and they do not meet however far they are produced.

Saccheri decided to prove the Euclidean parallel postulate by a reductio ad absurdum proof - one denies the initial assumption and shows a logical sequence that gets a result that is a contradiction.

Saccheri denied the parallel postulate in two ways:

1. No line can be drawn parallel to a given line through a point not on that line.
2. Any number of lines can be drawn parallel to a given line through a point not on that line.

Keeping the other Euclidean axioms unchanged Saccheri developed two geometrical systems based on his two denials of the parallel postulate. The results were clearly absurd and contradictory on the Euclidean plane.

However it really wasn’t absurd at all. If we consider a plane surface as one of two dimensions we can determine any point on that plane by two numbers.

continued

continued

The two coordinates, longitude and latitude can determine any point on the surface of the earth. The first denial of the parallel postulate produced a new geometry called spherical geometry.

The second denial produced a new geometry called hyperbolic geometry. This is the geometry of space-time used in relativistic physics a twentieth century development long after Saccheri.

To return to the religious analogy the propositions that religions are built on may be adequate for the society in which the religion has come into being but may no longer be adequate for the society of the future.

Catholicism has produced many encyclicals and other ecclesiastical pronouncements as it met the challenges of the times, as past doctrines were no longer adequate in themselves. Judaism has done the same. The Talmud is commentary on the Bible, and discussion of religious questions is still going on in a body of writing called the Responsa.

One of the bases for the split between Christianity and Judaism was whether Jesus was the messiah or not. However, it is vastly over-simplistic to say the difference between the two religions in the present world is that one regards Jesus as the Messiah, and the other is waiting for the Messiah. Both religions have almost two millennia of history since the split and have had to deal with challenges during the years. Both religions realise that we are not living in a Messianic Era, and the original reason or reasons for the split no longer is adequate to define the difference between the two religions

Dear David f,
I was responding to your use of the adjective “unprovable”, not to the gist of your statement, since I thought I addressed that already, when I wrote “These are all justified and normal ways of communication, provided you do not use force (physical, legal, psychological) to impose your convictions and point of view on others.“

In the past, a missionary conveying the Christian outlook could not appeal to any other understanding of truth - neither would he have one - than what I called trivial, using crude methods to make them “follow it“. In the past, teachers used to spank kids who could not do their maths properly. The lesson we must learn is to stop with the spanking, not with teaching maths.

It is interesting that you mention Saccheri and non-Euclidean geometry because it highlights the difference between axioms, as understood by contemporary mathematicians, and axioms as “necessary truths” as the Euclidean axioms were understood until 1800 even by mathematicians, when they were convinced that Euclidean geometry was the only correct idealisation of the properties of physical space.

No mathematician today speaks of axioms as necessary truths, as you rightly point out. In case of metaphysical/religious models of reality the situation is more complicated: for a believer his/her “axioms” are even today “necessary truths”, for an unbeliever they deal with undefined concepts.

I would modify your sentence as “the propositions that religions are built on may have been adequately formulated for the society in which the religion has come into being but may need reformulations, adequate for the society of the future.“ This is not unlike basic facts that physics is built on (except that the age of physics is measured in centuries, that of higher religions in millennia): in both cases it is the directly unknowable reality we try to model (using mathematics or mythology and metaphysical speculations respectively).

I essentially agree with the rest of your post, although, as said before I do not feel qualified to judge what is more and what is less adequate to define the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

The essential character of Christ Jesus teaching is the nature of the spirit of the inner man - the being (Sermon on the mount Matthew 5 - 8). We each have a god image and for secular humanist there is still a god - it is our passions, values and devotions.

We are a servant of our own beliefs, master of our passions and drives. This is the identity of the god we admire. The gods of pagan history might only be defined as a being outside the universe. But God it the dynamic of existence, reality and life. To some secular humanists onself the highest intelligence they believ is themselves. But as now some recognise there is a higher intelligence of which we are but a reflection. No man can escape his image - his spirit.

God is manifest in reality, truth and wisdom and is eternal and not the property of one. That Jesus taught ideals of being makes him a wise man to be respected for his knowledge of eternal truth.

you are a servant to your own beliefs, master of your passions and drives. This is the identity of the god you worship. God is not only defined as a being outside the universe you seem to classify as all people believe exists. Your image of the highest power is in you. You are your view of god. No man can escape his image - his spirit.

God is manifest in Truth and wisdom and is eternal and not the property of one. That Jesus taught them makes him a wise man to be respected for his knowledge of truth