Kevin's Watch

Wow. And I'm a Catholic.....

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (97%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (93%)
4. Seventh Day Adventist (75%)
5. Eastern Orthodox (74%)
6. Roman Catholic (74%)
7. Liberal Quakers (68%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (65%)
9. Reform Judaism (62%)
10. Unitarian Universalism (62%)
11. Orthodox Judaism (61%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (60%)
13. Islam (58%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
15. Sikhism (50%)
16. Theravada Buddhism (50%)
17. Neo-Pagan (50%)
18. Scientology (47%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (46%)
20. New Age (46%)
21. Hinduism (45%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (45%)
23. Secular Humanism (43%)
24. Jainism (43%)
25. Taoism (41%)
26. New Thought (40%)
27. Nontheist (31%)

Cail wrote:Wow. And I'm a Catholic.....

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (97%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (93%)
4. Seventh Day Adventist (75%)
5. Eastern Orthodox (74%)
6. Roman Catholic (74%)
7. Liberal Quakers (68%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (65%)
9. Reform Judaism (62%)
10. Unitarian Universalism (62%)
11. Orthodox Judaism (61%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (60%)
13. Islam (58%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
15. Sikhism (50%)
16. Theravada Buddhism (50%)
17. Neo-Pagan (50%)
18. Scientology (47%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (46%)
20. New Age (46%)
21. Hinduism (45%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (45%)
23. Secular Humanism (43%)
24. Jainism (43%)
25. Taoism (41%)
26. New Thought (40%)
27. Nontheist (31%)

Actually, given what I was taught about Catholics as a child, the really amazing thing to me is that you scored 75% SDA.

(They're the most protest-y of the Protestants, you know. And, as a bonus, they gave the world "splinter extremist" David Koresh.)

Aah, thanks Menolly. If I may ask, why do you prefer not to be counted? I very much doubt that it's a sense of inferiority, so I'm particularly curious.

Menolly wrote:Have you read Potok's The Book of Lights? I like all of his work, but other than The Chosen and The Promise, The Book of Lights is my favorite of his works.

Yeah, I've read almost all of his books, and while The Chosen and The Promise rank high on my list, Asher Lev is, IMHO at least, the best book he ever wrote. The way he captures the skill and struggle of the artist in words is incredible. I can't draw worth a damn, but when I read that book, I want to rush out an buy an easel. Can't recommend it enough, and I've "lost" two copies to artist friends, who couldn't bear to part with them after borrowing them.

--Avatar

True, and he does nail the artistic process. That book convinced me that, if I was crazy, at least I wasn't alone and crazy back when I was a kid. Back then, I thought I had found a secret treasure that no one else knew about. It's almost disheartening to know that everyone else loves my "precious" as much as I do...

Menolly is going to be starting a thread on Chaim Potok in the Gen Lit section of the Library. (Aren't you Menolly? ) Come on in and we'll talk about it.

To be honest, I'm sorta as surprised as you are, but in another way, glad that it's so loved.

--A

Avatar wrote:Aah, thanks Menolly. If I may ask, why do you prefer not to be counted? I very much doubt that it's a sense of inferiority, so I'm particularly curious.

:::tried to reply before I left for work this AM, and was booted:::

You're right. At least, IMO, I don't see it as a sense of inferiority. But, my reasons strictly apply to me. I even answered on the belief-o-matic that gender roles should bear no difference, and marked it as a high priority.

Anyway, for me...

As I stated earlier, I was raised within the Traditional Conservative movement of Judaism, which does not count women within a minyan. If I could find a TC shul, it's probably where I would still be most comfortable.

But, in my early 20s, as the Conservative movement started going more and more Egalitarian, I followed along with them. Since I was a voice major in school, I enjoyed being called up to the bimah (pulpit) to lead the davening (chanting/prayers).

Then, one Simchas Torah (celebration of the completion, and beginning anew, of the yearly reading of the Torah), during the joyous dancing with the Torahs around the shul (sanctuary), the Rabbi handed me one of the Torah scrolls to carry around. I eagerly accepted and started dancing.

But, midway through the circuit, I was struck with a feeling that this was wrong, that I should not be dancing with a Torah scroll, and that was reserved for the men only.

I can't explain that, and didn't go completly against Egaliatrainism for me right away. But, as I have studied more, and learned about the specific gender roles in Jewish halacha (law), I have come to the personal conclusion that until I can take on the roles specified for my gender, I have no business taking on additional halacha, that are usually reserved for men.

Again, I have no problem with other women who are counted in a minyan, or with female Rabbis and Chazzan (cantors/prayer leaders). One of my favorite rabbis to worship with is a female rabbi who has since moved away from Gator Town. I see it as I have no idea which of the gender specific halacha they are keeping, and if they choose to take on more of the halacha, more power to them.

It's sort of like my refusal to type out any name of G-d, regardless of if it's the proper name(s) for HaShem, English words such as L-rd, or a word that contains a name of G-d, no matter who's religion, such as Chr-stian.

Judaism does have a tradition of this, explained at Judaism 101: The Name of G-d, but it usually only appiles to names used by Jews for HaShem. I take it one step further, and consider it a sign of respect to all religions to not type out the name of any diety, if I can help it.

I admit whenever I am writing to someone named Jesus (ouch), or Christina (again, ouch), I feel a pang internally. But, I also feel it is disrespectful to the person not to spell out their name without explaining myself first. Whereas, I'm sure when I do it with the various names of dieties, whomever I am speakng about knows my intent, and won't take offense (I hope!).

But again, this is all my personal mishigos (craziness), and I don't really expect anyone else to understand...

Avatar wrote:

Menolly is going to be starting a thread on Chaim Potok in the Gen Lit section of the Library. (Aren't you Menolly? ) Come on in and we'll talk about it.

:wry grin:

I haven't made it over to The Library yet today. But I am assuming (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) that you replied to my question to you there in the affirmative?

Thanks for the explanation. I'm pretty much of the same opinion of you, in that anybody else can do whatever works for them, and that's it, and I should be allowed the same courtesy.

And yep, that was an affirmative answer, as you probably know by now.

--A

For those who have read my posts on evolution it shouldn't come as a surprise that I am an atheist.

What might come as a surprise, is that I once persuaded myself to believe in God (I needed purpose. I must have been low). I had him is a drawer kept well away from science books and right next to comfort, ethics, love and support. He was doing well there, and I felt good.

But then one day 'De Witness of Jah' came a'knockin’ wanting to discuss religion on a scientific basis. That completely spoiled the fun for me, and I told them after three visits, that they had taken away my belief in God. Which was completely true. They had tried to put him in a drawer where he did not belong, and he stuck out like a sore thumb. Btw, Reading parts of the old testament and the revelation didn't do much for me either; being only 14% brutal (see kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 8&start=75

I really don't understand why people think that if they trust and believe in the advances of science, they have to toss out their belief in God.

I believe in God, and I believe in science. I believe God gave us the abilities to discover the wonders of the world. Part of my life's work is to raise awareness and funds for HIV/AIDS research. It is the path the Lord has set before me. How could this be done without science?

I believe in the Big Bang...God sure did have His fun when He set that it motion.

As many know, I'm unable to make a stand one way or the other on the existence of a creator. However, my opinion has always been the same as Furls Fire's. I can't see any reason to think that a creator couldn't have made the natural laws the way they are so that, for example, evolution would go about the way I believe it does. Why would a creator want to create something that never changes? Even humans often want, and have the ability to create, more than that. Our paintings and novels may not change, but jazz musicians have another view of things. Once again: If perfection is stagnation, then heaven is a swamp! And the Is ain't hardly no swamp-cookie.

Well said Fist. I agree that there is no reason that a creator couldn't have done that, but I also think that there is no reason that one did.

I still tend to shy away from the idea of a creator as an anthropomorphic personification of some kind though. It's too much of an easy answer:
"How did all this come about?"
"Oh, somebody just made it, you know?"



--Avatar

Furls Fire: I used to feel exactly as you do, and I wanted to believe in God that way. But fundamentalists trying to explain God using science blew it for me. I could happily have gone on ascribing everything - that science could not yet explain - to God.

I think my main problem was, that evolution was presented to me as something incredibly unlikely. This made me think of the likelyhood of the existence of an antropomorphic somewhat sadistic creator.

Avatar: Never thought of that. To easy. Yes, you are right.

Fist: good philosophical slant there.

I should say: the origin of life was presented to me as incredibly unlikely.

It is incredibly unlikely. But incredibly unlikely things happen all the time.

--A

Avatar: Perhaps it is not so unlikely as we think. One of our great planetary scientists Jens Martin Knudsen (the Danish "Mr. Mars") just passed away, leaving a legacy of theorys. One of the most prominent being that life, (understood as self-organising and self-replicating chemistry) is inherent to the elements given the right circumstances and of course energy. Just like all elements in the universe in the absence of energy are constantly moving towards iron i.e. the lowest possible entropy (iron is the most stable isotope). And just like hydrogen inevitably fusing to become helium in stars.

I don't know if here are any actual physics behind the theory, but it sounds good.

Interesting theory, although, to be honest, I was thinking more along the lines of the accumulation of events in the particular fashion that led to the development of life as we know it, and eventually to our ability to discuss these things from opposite sides of the globe (almost).

Life might well be a "natural" phenomenon, (you know what I mean ) but that the exact necessary conditions were met, at exactly the right time, has always struck me as amazing at best when we consider rare those conditions and circumstances appear to be given our existing knowledge of the universe.

--A

Av, although we eventually found a couple of areas where we disagree, I still usually agree with you. As I do here. Although it sometimes seems unlikely to me that the universe, even to the extremely small degree we understand it, could have sprung from nothing or always existed, I don't see that a being capable of visualizing and creating it is more likely.

Prebe, I was once trying to tell a Jehovah's Witness why their pamphlet about evolution was wrong. Even my limited understand of the theory saw how little they understood it. I said this was not the theory of evolution, and they weren't disproving evolution by disproving this twisted version of it. (No, I didn't word it like that to her. ) She replied that some people thought this was the theory of evolution, and so they were disproving it. The flaws with this thinking are mind-numbing. But I don't consider it a reason to not believe in a creator, just a reason to not be a Jehovah's Witness.

And I usually with you Fist. (And in fact, even on the few questions we seem to disagree on, I don't really think of them as disagreements in principle, (unless you've been keeping quiet about them), so much as in the detail.)



--A

Good point FistOfFaith.

But I am alas beyond ever beliving in anything supreme being again.

Fist and Faith wrote:Why would a creator want to create something that never changes?

I don't understand this. Who claims a creator created something that never changes?