(ctd)

>>“When I am called before the Almighty he will not ask me why I am not like Moses he will ask me why I am not like Zosya.”<<

This is like what I use to tell those you criticize me for not being a good Catholic or Christian: “God will not ask whether you followed my conscience neither whether I followed yours, but the other way around.”

“The Imitation of Christ” is a text for Christian meditation. (I suppose Kabbalah and Sufi have also their texts.) To imitate does not mean to reach the same perfection - a child usually imitates its parents. Whatever is the meaning of the symbol of original sin, I do not think as such it leads any contemporary Christian to “concentrate on one’s failings”. Also, as I understand “we are all sinners”, it simply means we are all imperfect (in following our conscience and the “teaching of the Church”). Whatever has been claimed about non-Christians, they have never been seen as sinners (the Church does not require confession before adult baptism).

I agree that when one is righteous it does not matter whether one believes in God. What I was curious about was whether a member of an Abrahamic tradition can be RELIGIOUS without believing in God (I do not think there are many e.g. Buddhists among those 80% of American Jews.)

I also agree with you on separation of religion and state. There is only this ”cultural inertia” I mentioned before against which changes should not be forced lest they derail the whole process of peaceful separation (c.f. Communist revolutions vs social-democratic movements and reforms in Europe as far as the ideal of social justice is concerned).

Dear George,

I know of no Jewish group that agrees with the view that faith alone saves one. If you have not lived a righteous life then you will die an unrighteous person regardless of what protestations you make on your deathbed. What one thinks will happen after that differs according to the branch and the person. There is no prescribed view.

Judaism does not have anything to compare with the various creedal formulations such as the Apostolic, the Nicene and the many other creeds that exist in Christianity. Like Islam there is only one statement of faith. Islam” “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” Judaism: “Hear, O, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

There is no central figure like the pope who is an authority that all communicants respect. Each synagogue or temple hires or fires their own clergy. Clergy are not assigned to a congregation the way they are in Lutheran or Catholic churches. There are organisations of the different branches, and synagogues will generally hire those trained in the seminaries of their branch. However, they don’t have to, and a congregation may decide to either leave or join any branch. That decision is made by a vote of all adult members of the congregation including both men and women except in the various Orthodox branches where the vote is restricted to men. Some Orthodox sects have charismatic leaders, and the leadership may become a family matter.

Some Jews like Zosya believe that there will be a Day of Judgment. Others, even though they may be Hasids like Zosya, don’t.

Judaism like Christianity and Islam has a mystic tradition. The Zohar and Kaballah are sacred books in that tradition. I know very little about that tradition. I have tried to read about it, but I get a few pages into it, and it seems like utter nonsense. Although I have read Buber’s “Tales of the Hasidic Masters” I don’t relate to what I have seen of the other material he has written.

continued

Continued

The Christian who told me that Original Sin is the failure to reach perfection is Graham Young. I appreciate his openness to allow material on olo which is inconsistent with his beliefs although he did reject an article of mine which was too inconsistent.

I have read about the controversy between Pelagius and Augustine regarding Original Sin in a book by Elaine Pagels. According to her it was declared as doctrine by Emperor Honorius after a supporter of Augustine gave Honorius forty horses. Pelagius seemed much reasonable than Augustine but was exiled after the council.

A member of the Abrahamic tradition can be religious without believing in God. The Unitarian-Universalist Church in the US which stems from the Christian tradition does not require a belief in God. Unitarians are expected to engage in good works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_church will point you to other sites where one can read about the various Unitarian and Unitarian-Universalist churches. Their history goes back to 1565 and originally just rejected the Trinity. My daughter was married in a Unitarian Church whose minister was a former Catholic priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism tells of a similar non-theistic group among Jews.

Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) was an Islamic theologian and humanist. He opposed the division of the former British colony into Pakistan and India.

Akbar (1542-1605), Muslim emperor of India:

http://www.biography.com/people/akbar-the-great-9178163?page=2

…He allowed the Jesuits to construct a church at Agra, and discouraged the slaughter of cattle out of respect for Hindu custom. …

In 1579, a mazhar, or declaration, was issued that granted Akbar the authority to interpret religious law, superseding the authority of the mullahs. This became known as the “Infallibility Decree,” and it furthered Akbar’s ability to create an interreligious and multicultural state. In 1582 he established a new cult, the Din-i-Ilahi (“divine faith”), which combined elements of many religions, including Islam, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. The faith centered around Akbar as a prophet or spiritual leader, but it did not procure many converts and died with Akbar.

Non-theism seems to be a logical consequence of trying to merge such differing faiths.

i will try..to use..my own words..[from..my own life experiences]..i was raised..completely free..of any RELIGIOUS/creed/ritual..even prayer..even now..KNOWING god..is real..knowing the.texts..are real..[as in..present..not accurate]..i still..cant 'pray'..

ok..i have studied..the matter...know of its primacy/importance..yet..as i go..into..the various prayer positions..i hear my inner good/will..saying..what to say..

it..just seems..insane..god within..saying..any prayer..without..
when..he is..right there..sustaining..the helping..of me to form..my..[thinking pause]helping..to form..my conscious..internals into external construct..when god..is within..praying..with me

all/any..who would..dain..to be..hearing my 'prayer'..are external..as well..[oh..maybe..thats why payer is important[god with-us]..helping..us..to verbalize it..[manifest it..into being

of ourselves..we are nothing..but beast

god..is in..our highere/mind..im..in continual..thought/process..im in continual..praise of..the next amazing reveal..seeing gods hand in..the tiniest..things..that he reveals..physically to me..via/through/with/by..his helpers..and hinderers..of life..amassing possibilities

especially..the unexpected affirmations..or accidental confirmations..of the..strangest things..[one would..least expect it]..like when..im not looking..in authoritative text

specifically..these usually..sent at specific-times..[like..a bird scolding me..or the guy..who apologized..[that he drove..by me earlier..cause he didnt..see me]..then explained..how he was..specifically told..to drive me..to canberra..was specifically awakened..from his sleep..to do it..[timing..is everything]

[it is..maybe..that life..really*..is strange..just by itself..but mine..gets plain weird...[no hilarious..as i provide..endless amusements..no doubt..for my guides..and our true/good..within..

what is..the use of prayer?
dont god..already know?..

why did..the officer only escape hell..by activating..his power/of prayer..and yet..its power..is much abused..on..worthless gossip..and selfish need..heed

both/sides..of the war..praying
god..pleasse..kill mine enenma's..

NO>>..cause clearly..you are..sustaining them..both..their lives
what good..pleading to the god..of life..to the murder..of any life?

i only..love life..cause..gods doing it..because..HE..love our lives
if..i read one day..someone irrefutably..proves god is fraud..

i dont think life...*then..
[in that..imposable subjected..conditional/clause]..life..to mean anything..by/of by itself..[if chan'ge..realized..only by chan'ce]

[for me..its precious..only
be-cause gods..doing it all..of love alone..
and..as much as i..love god..his created life alone..isnt..reasoning..enough..alone..[of itself]..

it..would only..be too easy..to accept..even hope..
or assist..that it all..creation..was by..some chance thing's..
[but i know..KNOW..its so/much more..][no-thing is left..to chance..but change]

people..are missing..so much..by trusting..the science/naturalism
that says..no god..before..even examining..the witness..of their own life experiences

[we sure..are funny..
not just ha/ha..but hilarious]

we miss..the bleeding obvious/life only from life..
[energy into energy]..but sans..any higher reason..count me out

George,

I understand that you would never say this or that about others.

<<I never alleged that you (or anybody on this OLO) display naivety; there are just naive or simplified answers to complicated questions of philosophy (of science or religion).>>

But insinuation is no better. In fact, it’s worse.

<<I really don’t see any point in continuing this game of “correcting”, or having corrected, worldview assumptions or interpretations.>>

This is not a “game”.

The same thing happens in academia: if there are problems in, not just a conclusion, but the methods in which a conclusion was arrived at, then others will make their attempts to correct that. Every modern luxury and civil society that we enjoy is a product of this process. I don’t see why now should be any different. It is just downright offensive that you would belittle what someone else does by referring to it as a mere game just because you don’t like what it reveals.

<<As you could see it was addressed to AJ and implicitly to anybody who thinks that he/she must “correct” theists to become atheists or vice versa.>>

I have never said that one needs to correct theists the become an atheist, or vice versa. Why would you make this up, or insinuate such a thing by including me in the same sentence?

<<I think the purpose of this kind of threads is to try to understand each other’s position, not to “correct” it.>>

Attempting to correct each other is part and parcel of learning about each other’s perspective when discussing topics in depth. There have been many corrections going back and forth on this thread in recent weeks. What better opportunity to elaborate on a particular point than to respond to a correction?

And if someone says that the correcting is not welcome, then that’s fine and it should be respected. However, if the mistakes are repeated to belittle with insinuation, then that mistake becomes an open slather again.

aj..i asked..the obvious question..hoping to keep the topic going
i recall the link..you posted earlier..and note you managed to shut that one down..too..foolishly i thought you had gone away

clearly you and george go way back..and its clear you both..just seem to clash..and george has tried responding..tried ignoring..yet here you go yet again

you seem to want some complete submission...thats just not going to happen..why not agree to disagree..and give up trying to make whatever point..[you feel is insulting..and see your not innocent]

anyhow..<<..This is not a “game”.>>
nor is it a contest

<<..The same thing happens in academia:..>>

see that point..is interesting..
there are ego's..at stake in academia..your not some rival..in some game play?

<<..there are problems in,..not just a conclusion,
but the methods..in which a conclusion was arrived at,
then others..will make their attempts to correct that.>>

cause its all..just part..of the game?

<<>.I don’t see..why now should be any different.>>

because this isnt a game..nor academia..its more like a private talk..between people with real questions..not puishing their favoured theory..nor pushing buttons..but just questions..needing thinkers thought

like my why..of how a pre-determination can dis-qualify
even a most considered position..not arrived at lightly..but by science method..dedication and standard..even at the risk..of the sure censure..of peers..that will resist this validation..of theo thesis

<<..It is just downright offensive..>>..yes it is..
why not reply the concepts..refute my facts..instead youcontinue your gasme..with george[and he has clearly said..he isnt going to play

<<that you would belittle..what someone else does>>

yet you keep ondoing that
refute my proof..

[david cant..be bothered refuting ..
and clearly..you cant

great
athiest lost..the opportunity
of making..their point..yet again..so you..distract from the game

ya happy now?
play the topic..not the man

its a mere game..because its you
that don’t like..what it reveals...
you..refuse to consider the simple science fact;s..just looking for some vengeance..based on one silly throw away..word..yep..thats your game

refute..the fact