Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 70,097
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66557 Jan 30, 2014
Thank you "judging" God

Would you like a bowl of fruit as an offering?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66558 Jan 30, 2014
Well, If you dont like fruit, what do you like?

I dont do virgins.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66559 Jan 30, 2014
ooops, that obviously did not come out right

I dont PROVIDE virgins

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#66560 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think (and you previously alluded to) that the major difference between religion and secular humanism is that religion provides a holistic framework for living while secular humanism provides an ethical framework for living.
Sure, one could survive on a diet of humanism alone. But its not for everyone, some want the whole deal - the head and the heart - as an integrated system of lifestyle.
Sure, religion is not the only source of ethics - but no Jew here every argued that. But it provides a emotional motivation for ethics, which is not a minor thing, relative to secular humanism which lacks in that area.
Sure religion has historically been a source of tribalism - but superficially there is nothing wrong with that. And if that alone bothers you (as it appears it might bother COR), then there are ecumenical versions of most world religions (In Judaism - the Reform and Reconstructionist denomination) that remove that value from the system if it bothers you.
Is this for me?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66561 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Spurious correlation. Many religious folk are not cut in the same cloth as the fundies you are familiar with. COR suffers the same error - lumps everyone in to the same group.
Me, familiar with Fundies?

How so?

Have definitely had more Jewish friends than fundies. The only I even know is a brother I rarely get to see. Though admittedly he is annoying.

My Philadelphia Jewish friend wouldn't eat a cheesesteak. But that may have been more from eating habits than religious reasons. So I can't definitely attribute this to strict compliance.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66562 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm
12 Thou shalt not murder.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Its the actual translation - not the pop translation you are familiar with.
.
I believe I already stood corrected on this.

Even see "Office Space" movie.

So many folks correcting me on my TPN reports!
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66563 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
could be argued that they would be even more of a genius had they not be sods
Even more impressive than.

How smart they were with their brains pickled.

People will always have vices.

First time I ever got drunk:

I was in 7th or 8th grade - went to my friend's
house for Passover/Seder. Sweet wine. Tasted like
yummy grape juice to me.

His mom wouldn't let me ride my bike home.
She drove me.

Now I only like the dry stuff. Pinot Noir.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66564 Jan 30, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this for me?
No -its for COR, building on what you had to say.

I was a bit sloppy with the "yous"...it was 4 AM here.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66565 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more impressive than.
How smart they were with their brains pickled.
People will always have vices.
First time I ever got drunk:
I was in 7th or 8th grade - went to my friend's
house for Passover/Seder. Sweet wine. Tasted like
yummy grape juice to me.
His mom wouldn't let me ride my bike home.
She drove me.
Now I only like the dry stuff. Pinot Noir.
Manishevitz, a staple of my generation in America (before there were choices), is sickly sweet.

Religious youth groups arent any different than any other youth group, IMO. Opportunities to get drunk, first sexual encounters (etc etc)....

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66566 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles: Just because someone identifies as religious does not make them an automaton.
FR: But it helps
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Me, familiar with Fundies?
How so?
Have definitely had more Jewish friends than fundies. The only I even know is a brother I rarely get to see. Though admittedly he is annoying.
My Philadelphia Jewish friend wouldn't eat a cheesesteak. But that may have been more from eating habits than religious reasons. So I can't definitely attribute this to strict compliance.
I dont see the basis for your above statement. Maybe in the fundamentalist strands of religion. Which is why I made the latter comment about your exposures.

Do you know what is involved in a religious lifestyle? Sure, from the outside its about comformity. But with a set of standards up close and personal to apply at all times, it actually INCREASES your choices. By design. A spiritual path, if done seriously, will lead to a heightened state of awareness on ALL fronts, including a conscious awareness of behavioral choices.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66567 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
I dont see the basis for your above statement. Maybe in the fundamentalist strands of religion. Which is why I made the latter comment about your exposures.
,
Would you concede at least that some personalities are better at following a set of rules, "standards" and laws than others? And some are joiners, while others aren't.

You keep saying that CoR and I are grouping all religions together (into the Fundie mode)..
I say I don't know any. And when I think of religion, I don't actually think specifically of them.
(Perhaps when thinking of the abortion/birth control/gay issues here in the US.)

But generally I think of the world, the Middle East, history, the Crusades and so on. Christians, Muslims, Jews....

But clearly YOU keep grouping all Christians under the Fundie umbrella. Call it the low-hanging fruit, if you will. I do.

I understand, as this may be your exposure, or what comes to mind for you when you think of Christians. I OTOH was born and raised Catholic, dad was an altar boy, mom went to Catholic boarding schools (poor mom!)
Frijoles wrote:
Do you know what is involved in a religious lifestyle?
Only as stated above and from friends and other limited expore.

Similarly, you would have limited exposure to a non-religious lifestyle.
Frijoles wrote:
Sure, from the outside its about comformity. But with a set of standards up close and personal to apply at all times, it actually INCREASES your choices. By design. A spiritual path, if done seriously, will lead to a heightened state of awareness on ALL fronts, including a conscious awareness of behavioral choices.
That's a hell of a statement.

So you have a more "heightened state of awareness" that the average atheist?

This strikes me as arrogant which is why folks like me stay away from this sort of thing.

The behavioral statement smacks of piety.(Which puts me in mind of Fundies!)

Those goes back to the discussion CoR and Rick were having.

None of us invented ethical/moral behavior. Our point is only that you don't need religion to do it - or even to do it better.

It is normal human behavior that when we form ourselves into groups, we reinforce one another's thinking and then begin to exclude others (and even feel superior to "others").

This can be seen in high schools when we formed ourselves into cliques. Jocks, freaks etc.

Sociology is what it is.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66568 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
So its a fundamentalist-extremist issue, which is arguably not even a religious issue.
How is that not a religious issue?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66569 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...The path of life, for the religious, is not only to enact moral behaviors (i.e. actions between man), but to enact religious behaviors (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection). Those are intangibles, and obvious not what you value. No one has posited that religion is the sole source of morals. But for those who seek a lifestyle deeper than just following moral precepts, its a viable alternative.
Fair enough. But my point is that the moral precepts can survive on their own and needn't be unnecessarily tied to religion. And the things that religion does offer you (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection) can also survive on their own without being unnecessarily tied to moral precepts. Therefore, why combine the two?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66570 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...not everyone lives in their head, many or most people live in their hearts as well. Secular Humanism provides zippo in that direction.
You're stuck on this notion that moral precepts and emotional fulfillment that religion provides need to be bundled up neatly in one package (which is what religions attempt to do today), and that because secular humanism doesn't provide the latter, it is somehow an inferior worldview.

I'm suggesting that the two can be unbundled and dealt with seperately. I'm not advocating for the abolition of religion, but rather for the unbundling. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66571 Jan 30, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you "lead" a moral life if there are no consequences?
Existence of God is no "exercise in futility"..... it is account giving of our deeds that "leaves us no option but to lead a moral life".
You might lead a moral life strictly because of the reward/punishment you believe will occur in the afterlife.

I lead a moral life because I'm concerned about the world I (and my children) live in now.

I will argue that my approach is more genuine. Yours is predicated on coercion. Your approach makes your behavior disingenuous at best, psychopathic at worst.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66572 Jan 30, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
Griffith, Selznick, Kubrick, Spielberg were all filmmakers who make groundbreaking strides in film. But not one of them claims to have invented film making. So I find it difficult to understand why secular humanists insist on believing they invented the concept of morality.
When did I, or anyone for that matter, claim that secular humanists invented the concept of morality. On the contrary, secular humanists see morality as a natural extension of evolutionary growth. I would argue that it is the religionists and objective moralists that are more likely to claim ownership of the "truths" behind morality.
Rick Moss wrote:
For longer than recorded time, the human species has been divided into cultures and most of those cultures had a concept of religion. This religion provided the backbone to their moral code. Believers in the religion had an obligation to abide by that code to be considered part of the social construct of that religion. That was the impetus to abide by the moral code.
I'd like to think we're capable of evolving beyond that and adopting newer, more efficient tools or processes.
Rick Moss wrote:
Secular humanism doesn't provide the same social construct as religion and provide no moral authority to abide by its precepts.
Like Frijoles, you are making the mistake of assuming that morality and religion is a bundled package and that the components of that bundle can't be dealt with separately. They most certainly can.
Rick Moss wrote:
Additionally, secular humanism deals almost exclusively in ethics (that which a culture defines at the moment as right and proper) vs morality -- that which is objectively good and bad.
I disagree with your definitions and separation of ethics and morality. I see them as one and the same, and I also reject the concept of an objective morality. Throughout human history, morality is and always has been relative.
Rick Moss wrote:
What moral code humanism does have comes unchanged from the religion-based moral codes that preceded it -- don't murder, don't steal, treat people fairly, etc.
Are you implying that murder was not recognized as being bad prior to religion? Murder is bad for society. Our primitive ancestors would have evolved to understand that, even before religion was invented. Religion was simply one means of enforcing these rules, but certainly not the only means.
Rick Moss wrote:
... But let's take a look at some of the horrendous concepts that humanism has been quick to embrace and provide justification over just the last century or so -- Nazism, communism, fascism, eugenics, the list goes on. So, maybe slow and steady has its advantages when attempting to define a moral code.
Are you seriously implying that humanism embraced Nazism, communism, fascism, eugenics, etc...?

From wiki...

"Humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism)."

Please tell me how that equates to all the bad things you listed.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66573 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles

Would you agree that religion is man-made? Yours?

What is the difference between religion and philosophy?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66574 Jan 30, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that not a religious issue?
Because I believe it is more of a personality issue than a social issue.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66575 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
Frijoles
Would you agree that religion is man-made? Yours?
What is the difference between religion and philosophy?
(Organized) Religion is how man answers what he perceives is a call from God.

Religion is man in search of God. Philosophy is man in search of truth. On some level these are the same, but only if everyone agrees what truth is. Which never happens.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66576 Jan 30, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. But my point is that the moral precepts can survive on their own and needn't be unnecessarily tied to religion. And the things that religion does offer you (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection) can also survive on their own without being unnecessarily tied to moral precepts. Therefore, why combine the two?
Because, as I said, not everyone lives soley in their head. Traditionally, secular ethics provides a lousy outlet for affairs and expressions of the heart. Not to say that you couldnt combine secular ethics with the arts, but some people want it all in one bundle. You dont. But some do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep '14 fancy 3
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Sep '14 Mia 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match

Monterey Jobs

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]