Founder, The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications
For more than 40 years, “On Faith” panelist Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has devoted himself to the monumental undertaking of translating and reinterpreting the Talmud, the vast collection of rabbinic writings that constitute Jewish civil and religious laws. Steinsaltz, who lives in Jerusalem, began this task in 1965, when he founded The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications. The Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud, of which 37 volumes have been published so far, has made the Talmud accessible to tens of thousands of Hebrew speakers. In 1989, he began producing an English edition of 22 volumes. Since 1994, 15 volumes have been published in French, and four have appeared in Russian. The Talmud project has been described as the most important Jewish publication endeavor of the 20 th Century. Steinsaltz has written some 60 books and hundreds of articles on a wide variety of topics, including Hasidism and the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah. One of his most popular books is The Thirteen Petalled Rose , which he describes as “a little book for the soul.” In 1989, Steinsaltz established a Russian branch of Mekor Chaim--the first Jewish institution to receive official recognition in the former Soviet Union . He also founded the Aleph Society, and the Mekor Chaim Educational Institutions. In 1988, Steinsaltz received the prestigious Israel Prize--his nation's highest honor. He has lectured at major universities and research institutions in the United States and Europe, including Princeton University , Yale University , Columbia University , the Woodrow Wilson Center , Oxford University and the Sorbonne.
Close.
Adin Steinsaltz
Founder, The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications
For more than 40 years, “On Faith” panelist Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has devoted himself to the monumental undertaking of translating and reinterpreting the Talmud, the vast collection of rabbinic writings that constitute Jewish civil and religious laws.
more »
Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm Jewish by birth, but I'm more or less agnostic, and find spiritual enrichment in many religions, from my personal experiences in nature, interacting with people I know and don't know, etc.
Also, by saying that religious ceremonies allow us to step out of the river of life, I mean out of the flow of our day to day lives, not that religious ceremonies aren't a part of life.
Now, I didn't finish reading everything here, but it's AMAZING how many people missed the rather clever, ironic joke here:
"But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
I saw only one comment that subtly acknowledged it. I seriously doubt the Rabbi thinks atheism is a dying breed, and only arises out of rebellion against one's upbringing.
And I don't get the sense that he's asking whether "non-believers" should celebrate Thanksgiving, but rather, stating that Thanksgiving provides an opportunity for "non-believers" to have the kind of experience that a believer gets from religious ceremonies and rituals. And I think he's right. Religious ceremonies provide an opportunity for stepping out of the river of life in order to observe that river from its banks. Thanksgiving provides that opportunity in a non-religious way. If you think about it, his column is pointing out some rare common ground shared by atheists and believers.
This morning I saw an amazing scientific program about the origin of life on our planet.
One of the main pieces of information was that the elements, or main ingredients, for life to develop, were already present, contained within the meteorites showering on the earth.
As the substance of life is contained within a seed, soon to fertilise the ground. So amino acids and oxygen were present in the meteorites which hit the earth, in turn transforming these into a living organism.
What a better metaphor or comparison could I find, by watching these impressive images, than the projected sperm entering his ovary.
As if the entire system were in fact a womb, within which the male function was manifested by an overwhelming and continuous flow of comets, and the female being the large number of planets waiting for chance to play its part.
This, to me, is a rather magnificent demonstration of an all powerful force, if not G-d, what else ?
The atheist puts a great deal of energy into his position. "Thou dost protest too much." When a person is so bent on proving another belief wrong ( while his belief is right and true) I find something not quite right in such a pronounced stance. What would feel real and natural would be the agnostics point of view.
I myself, believe in G-d.
There are times when I am depressed that I find myself questioning G-ds existance. I KNOW it is I who has disconnected myself. See that word dis-connected? Before the dis, I WAS connected.
To what I cannot expalin in simple terms, other than when connected, I feel the connection to a source other than myself. I feel it, I know it, it's real, though I cannot see it with my eyes. I feel it with my soul...my being, my essence. Not with my brain. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. No one has the right to impose his/her belief on another. So as a member of the first religion believing in a non- physical G-d, I say live and let live. Judaism is about living life here and now to our fullest potential as human beings. You know, electric currents, though very real, are invisible to the eye. So what's the big deal that we cannot see G-d? We cannot see many things that science considers real.
Can one of the atheists explain to me how you can prove a negative, ie. how can you prove that G-d DOESN'T exist?
It would seem to me that, at best, you can only honestly say that you don't know if G-d exists.
There are actually two issues here: "the knowledge and absolute truth that you are going to die" and the death event itself. I believe that both the believer and non-believer are together on the former but differ on the latter (other things too of course).
You could react to the knowledge that you are going to die in a variety of ways, but irrational fear would be the first reaction without any deeper contemplation. I guess in a sense both the atheist and theist take comfort in their different reactions to this absolute truth.
The theist decides to 'believe' in an afterlife which enables him to reduce death to a doorway to the afterlife realm.
The atheist cannot take comfort in things that have no palpable reality. To him 'belief' is at best wishful thinking. He draws comfort from the reality of death the reality of what he will experience, which is not death, but the last moments of his life. This is not a belief to be measured against other beliefs but an observable everyday reality. People die everyday in hospitals, nursing homes, road accidents, etc.
The problem is Western society tends to hide death, and hence the reality of death, from people behind morgues, closed coffins, etc. All we see instead is usually a wooden box and sadly a religious ceremony or speech, regardless, whether the deceased was religious or not.
I have witnessed my best friend die in front of me shortly after a motorcycle accident. Not that I wish that trauma on anyone, but there is no way I can be confused as to what actual death is. Although that was a bad and deeply shocking event, it does not have to be that way. If we still lived in extended familys then we would inevitably witness the deaths of our grandparents which would not be shocking and out of place but integrated into family and communal life.
Hence, although the inevitability of death can give rise to an initial fear both the theist and the atheist are taking comfort, the former in belief and latter in reality. The problem is the theist pays too high a price for his comfort.
His real life becomes infected with the lust for the afterlife. His real life cannot compete with an afterlife that is so much better and infinitely longer. Hence, the arbitrary requirements to get to that afterlife swamp the wants and needs of his real life.
What starts off as a small belief in an afterlife has to be inflated out more and more with other beliefs. You need a vehicle to get you to the afterlife, so you need to believe in soul. You need to believe in a God to run the afterlife (although he also needs to have some effect in real life too). You need to believe in a specific religion whose rituals properly appease that God and hence gain you entry into the afterlife. To follow that religion you need to believe that the religion's bible is absolute truth. The interpreted dictates of that dogma need to then effect your every real life choice, depending on your level of devoutness and piety.
Your real life and the real world in which it is conducted have now been hijacked. They have faded to become just some byproduct of God's arbitrary actions. But the only real human reality here is your faith all the rest, God included, are just phantoms created by that faith.
The atheist draws the same comfort against the inevitability of death without the confusion or intrusion of unreal entities. Also death still serves a purpose for the atheist, as encumbered by these huge frameworks of belief, it serves to heighten his awareness (and thankfulnesss) of his real life. Every second becomes a gift not to be wasted. Death can also be an advisor as the only question you need to answer is: "Would you be doing THIS if you were to die in the next minute?"
To gain the same level of comfort the theist has to swamp and confuse his real life with the unreal and render his death meaningless. That price is too high and frankly not necessary.
First, I am agnostic lets be clear on that. As many fellow atheist and/or agnostic brethen, I was a little taken aback by narrowminded, somewhat offenseive statement by this article. For a man supposedly studied in theology his statement are disturbing. To think I'm rebelling or angry at God or confused somehow is plan crazy. I have found that atheist and agnostics have spent probably much more time exploring religious matters then most lay persons in the church, mosque, etc.
Of course we can be thankful as others have put so well previously. And yes...I believe in Turkey! (poorly executed joke I assume by the Rabbi)
In your first post in this thread you said:
"The believer has his sights firmly set on the afterlife because his religion has made death into something to truly fear." Without getting into the rest of your post, I think this is demonstrably false.
Let's start with a premise I think can be agreed upon. Death is the end of a human beings existence in the natural world, as we currently can measure and understand the natural world.
Let's next consider the athiest position that the natural world is all there is. Death for an individual, then, is the endpoint of all existence. For this reason, death, by and large, is something that is feared. (I hesitate to use the word "fear", because I think a lot of time is being wasted on symantic differences. Suffice it to say, given the choice of being alive or dead, I think it is common sense that most people would choose being alive and the vote would not even be close.)
Let's now consider the thesist position. The theist belives that the natural world is not all there is and that existence continues on afterward. Now let's consider two aspects of this, of which your initial statement focuses on only one. You rightly point out that if exitence continues after death, death becomes something that is actually experienced. With respect, this is immaterial. The important thing is not the instant of death but the existence beyond death, something that I would argue most religions present as a better existence than is currently had. To the theist death is transformed from the End of what is into the beginning of a will be.
Now one can argue that religion preys upon existing fears of death (pun intended), but religion does nothing to heighten that fear for the believer. It diminishes it.
Thinking you can sneak around your death and gain leverage over your invisible God through worship is true pride and arrogance.
An atheist is only blind to things that are not real. In his world wishful thinking does not trump reality. Show me the slightest scrap of reality about your soul, God or afterlife. Your faith is real but the object of your faith has no reality. It is just wilful arrogance and ignorance to believe in entities they are not real.
An atheist can't fear his death. His death has nothing to do him, much like his birth. He does not experience death like the believer believes he will.
The atheist does not want to die, but then again neither does any human, as only humans are aware they were born to die.
The theist's "everlasting continuum" has nothing to do with the real world unless they believe in reincarnation. Hence, 80 years compared to untold billions is almost nothing. Hence, his real life is completely devalued.
The whole notion of the afterlife is really just trying to sneak around the absolute fact of your death. You have to believe it is a better place("everlasting continuum") as you are unlikely to fall in love with an idea of a worse place are you?
My piont is simple your highly evolved brain has a price: You know you are going to die. It has evolved to come up plans and ideas to get you out of every life threathening situation. Ideas of afterlives and the lesser ideas of Gods are such ideas. But to indulge these ideas at the expense of reality creates a worse problem than dying: Awareness after death. The horror of this requires an all powerful God to balance.
To be more brief the afterlife is the only important religious entity. God is just the ring master of the afterlife circus. But if the circus does not exist all you are left with is an idiot in a top hat. All believers should realise this. So if God is not the most important thing than their faith is really about their deaths and the passage of their souls to the afterlife.
Therefore, theists actually believe in a afterlife and God is only an ancillary requirement on that afterlife.
What you believe is hardly biblical then. You talk of God heads and karmic rewards and punishments and reincarnation. I thought that the type of reincarnation was the reward or punishment not some Catholic purgatory (joy machine).
Nonetheless, it involves a temporay afterlife or staging ground at least which means you believe you will experience your death while an atheist has no such concerns. Hence, like the Christian you need to grab onto to a God to balance the horror of experiencing your own death.
"The all-human expression of religious sentiment as an expression of the direct relationship between the individual and the Creator."
Ah, I see. Well, it's nice to know that religious people who don't believe that the universe was created are excluded from your "religious" Thanksgiving.
"But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
Wow. Really? You truly believe that it's impossible to lack belief in the existence of god/s without it being some sort of pathetic rebellion against a strict religious upbringing?
That'll be news to my religious atheistic friends, too.
One would think that Newsweek would take the time to make sure that its panelists at least knew about the existence of Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism before setting this thing up. Or are we only counting religions of the Book when we speak of "religion"? Which is odd, because apparently thanking the people in my life who have helped me become who I am (my parents, relatives, and friends for those I'm in direct contact with, and all of the people in the world who help to make the worldwide community better, who give more of themselves than is required so that humanity can survive and thrive, not to mention those who have contributed in a such a way in the past) is a religious act. And here I thought that it was just a *human* one.
Oops! Rick, that post above from last night, addressed to you from "Anonymous," was by me. I neglected to re-enter my name, etc. Sorry.
I don't understand the point of the "remember personal info?" box, if you still have to re-enter your name, e-mail, and url every time you post. For that matter, I don't even understand why it asks for e-mail and url when those pieces of information apparently have no effect on posts. But I guess those are questions for this site's administrators . . .
What's a "non-beliver" and why do so called "Christians" use this term to futher separate and exclude others? If I believe we are one - I am you, you are me, we are God and you don't, can I call you a "non-believer."?
In retrospect, my rhetoric was pretty strong. I overreacted to the tacit insult I saw in the original piece, which I still believe was there. I do apologize for being so heated about it, but you probably should understand that presenting the "other side of the coin" was pretty much my intent. You may not appreciate how tiresome it gets to be constantly assured that your atheism is merely because you're "angry at God," which makes no sense, or else "rebelling against your parents/community/fill-in-the-blank," which is infuriatingly patronizing.
Basically, he implied that there's no possible basis for atheism other than some kind of infantile rebellion against religion, which is nonsense (trying to keep it kinder and gentler this time). That struck me as either hostile or ignorant; either way, I was disappointed with the WP for making such a poor choice of a Rabbi to write on the subject.
Implicit in his whole approach was the premise that he's right, and atheists are confused and frightened; given the right kind of incentives and context (e.g., Thanksgiving), we pitiable lot can discover the joys of "entering into religious practices." Thanks, Rabbi! You're saying we atheists should be tolerated participants in Thanksgiving because it increases the likelihood of our ceasing to be atheists! Unstated premise: Inducing us to enter into religious practices is obviously a good thing, whether we know it or not. He either thinks we're all idiots or just doesn't understand atheism.
You said you're not interested in debating the merits of atheism vs. theism, and that's fine. But then you said this:
"Let's grant that their may be a reasoned position for athieism, but let us also grant that there may be a reasoned position for a believer position as well. One that is not anti-intellectual, that is open to reason and logic, that is not fear based nor founded in superstition."
Well, sure, I'm open to the possibility that there is such a reasoned position supporting god-belief. I just have yet to see one. My own reasoning leads me to the conclusion that, with so many people working on it without success, such a reasoned position doesn't exist. But I still remain open to seeing one, if it does. Maybe, if you're not interested in that discussion, somebody else here can show me one. Probably not; that's just my considered guess based on past experience.
Thanks for replying to my post, and sorry if I went a little too harsh there in my first post.
> The ACLU, would like nothing less then to take and
> remove all Christian/ religous items from all
> areas public and private for that matter. The
> Korean war memoral on Mt. Soledad comes to mind
> here. Which just happens to be a cross. So when
> are your types going to "clean" up grave sites as > well?
It is true that the ACLU does not want the federal government to take over the latin cross on Mt. Soledad because they see it as a violation of the Contitution's establishment clause. Reasonable people will disagree about how to interpret the constitution, to be sure, but your point is 100% valid - equal treatment. How that works out in practice is not always simple.
The line in your statement about graves caused me to visit the ACLU site to see where it came from. The ACLU says the following:
"Religious symbols on personal gravestones are vastly different from government-sponsored religious symbols or sectarian religious symbols, such as a 43- foot Latin cross on government-owned property. Gravestones and the symbols placed upon them are the choice of individual service members and their families. The ACLU would in fact vigorously defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, including veterans and service members, buried at National and State cemeteries to display the religious symbol of their choosing on their gravestone." http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26186leg20060717.html
Jenna and Ed for that matter>>> READ THE MESSAGES!! It wasn't Fern that had the quote it was me. You are so fired up to go after my faith that it has blinded you. As it seems if I was any other faith you wouldn't be so hot fired to get me, so as to not even mention the correct person.
And as for displays on goverment places I don't need any state ran anything, just the right to be treated equal. The ACLU, would like nothing less then to take and remove all Christian/ religous items from all areas public and private for that matter. The Korean war memoral on Mt. Soledad comes to mind here. Which just happens to be a cross. So when are your types going to "clean" up grave sites as well?
I go back to the fact all relgions are ok for you as long as it isn't Christian,or as long as you don't question morals or ethics of others.. And people will fall over each other, to make this point clear.
Jenna...thank you for your voice of reason in this storm of confusion! What we fail to realize, America is plagued with people with insideous lifestyles like no other time in history. Though it may appear that they are just assuming basic principle rights...sadly, they have an inescapable desire to take what we hold most dearly away to nullify the shame, guilt or public ridicule that is brought back at them for the way they want to live. My voice is not of hate...just the light of truth!
Fern said: Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me )
Fern's commment is a sad relfection on how misinformed some people are, and it explains the fear that some people feel about religious issues. I don't want to take away her right to pray openly anywhere. I just don't want her to impose her beliefs on me. Does Fern need to have a state-owned Jesus in the manger on public property to feel fully Christian? Won't the same display on her church's front lawn do the same, without having my government endorse her beliefs?
Fern said: Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me )
Fern's commment is a sad relfection on how misinformed some people are, and it explains the fear that some people feel about religious issues. I don't want to take away her right to pray openly anywhere. I just don't want her to impose her beliefs on me. Does Fern need to have a state-owned Jesus in the manger on public property to feel fully Christian? Won't the same display on her church's front lawn do the same, without having my government endorse her beliefs?
My, my, what thin skins people have. The Rabbi based his opinion and has been flamed by others making the exact same errors assuming they know what makes a believer!
Each person is an individual, one day we will realize that there is no one in those boxes we try to fit everyone in.
Fern:
But then that wouldn't pit Christians against the world. And honestly, it is seeming that the general posts in most of this forum is one that is against the God of the Bible.
If the person who wrote the commentary is Christian or Othordox Jew. The common line is the God of the Bible. Someone somewhere has to attack that person...
So where is the thankfulness of these persons? I personally don't see it, all I see is the ones who are claiming people to be narrow minded being the ones who are just what they see in others.
Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me ) then having to hide my faith like in other countries.
The Rabbi, has a point. Being Athesit or agnositic for that matter takes more faith and proof then that of someone who believes in a God.
As clinging onto the righteousness of mankind will fall sooner or later. As someone somewhere will always fail us somehow. Unless then you add the relative arguement into the mix, which only in reality adds chaos into the mix, as then no one has morals and everything is ok.
"How a short essay on Thanksgiving ends up being a food fight between "atheists" and "believers" ... (sigh!)." - (Barry above)
Well, the question was set up to provoke one, wasn't it? When we're asked "Should non-believers celebrate Thanksgiving?" there's bound to be a fight. So far among the responses I've read here only Rev. Tully seems to have had a sensible reaction.
As for agnosticism or me atheism (an absence of belief in the existence of god(s)) is the only reasonable result of agnosticism, which is the idea that one should not accept as true any proposition which is not well supported by objective evidence and logical argument. I am only atheistic about one more god than those who accept Jesus but reject Allah, Zeus or Odin. I just apply the same agnostic standard to all of them, without exceptions.
I find it very interesting to see how these conversations wind on. It seems like at first the comments are thoughtful and respectful. But soon enough people feel the need to either attack what one person has said, or attack someone else's belief system.
I guess you would call me an agnostic. I believe there may be a god -- or a supernatural force that it different than us but is somehow cosmically related to us.
In terms of having a religion or defined belief system, I wonder which I should choose? Would I choose Christianity, Taoism, Wicca, Judaism, etc. etc.?
I believe if there is a superior force called God, then he/she/it will likely be benevolent to me for trying to lead a just life given my circumstances.
I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and I live in a society which is Christian. So I do find myself easily falling into the Christian mind-set.
In fact, at night when I pray, I do say some Christian prayers. But this is only a vehicle to give thanks to God or to the spirit of life and the world.
I think that all of the different spokespeople that begin these chats have the best intentions. And I give them thanks for their dedication to helping people bear the stuggles of life a little easier.
How a short essay on Thanksgiving ends up being a food fight between "atheists" and "believers" ... (sigh!).
The extremes of either end of the spectrum are just that -- extremes. Assuming that "atheists" can't know joy and are "blind to (God)" is just plain silly. Some HAVE heard "The Word" and found it lacking.
Likewise, "atheists" calling "believers" out as fearful and superstitious is a different color of the same intolerant zealotry shown by America's Christian Nationalists. Neither side can "prove" its position as superior to the other.
Maybe its the "agnostics" who have it right -- absent proof one way or the other, belief in the uncertainty of a God seems more logical, doncha think?
Just some food for thought, hopefully neither "stuffing" nor left-over "turkey".
Paulie writes: "No, most non-believers are people who think religious belief is an arbitrary, tradition-bound exercise in primitive, fear-based, ignorant supersition with no basis in objective reality. They may have arrived at this view after rebelling against the religion of their parents; they may have been raised free of undue influence and recognized the obvious on their own. Either way, they have something for which to be thankful - their intellectual independence."
I have no desire to argue athiest vs believer positions here, but doesn't this statement imply that believers are all being duped by either their co-religionists or their own fears and insecurities? Which may well be little more than the opposite side of the coin from which the writer is taking exception.
Let's grant that their may be a reasoned position for athieism, but let us also grant that there may be a reasoned position for a believer position as well. One that is not anti-intellectual, that is open to reason and logic, that is not fear based nor founded in superstition.
To simply wipe out all metaphysical thought and study with one word "superstition" is to deny that there is much in this world that is not understandable or explainable. To be open to this part of our world is not to deny objective reality, but to honor that part of it with our thought, reason and study.
"atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
One of the proudest days of my life was the day my oldest son, then age 10, was telling me about his day at school and mentioned that he and his friends had been talking about God. "I don't think I believe in God". he said, casually, and moved on to other news of the day. I knew at that point that he was learning to think for himself.
I believe in GOD, and am happy. I love life, and find it is too short to miss so many opportunities.
The physical world with all its materialities is too flawed and imperfect that there is nothing as pathetic as seeing a wealthy person who dies, and cannot bring any of the things he had so cherished (and fought hard to get) during his life.
Atheists used to say that believers are weak-minded people who need a crutch (in THE PERSON OF GOD) to lean on, or ignorant, or primitive, or not scientific enough.. and so on.
What they do not know is that belief in GOD sheds light on the origin and destiny of human being; in terms of its eternity. Life is life, and remains life forever. Our mortal body was not made to resist death, because Almighty GOD has created a better dwelling for our soul for its post-death life.
Rabbi Steinsatlz takes some sweeping generalizations about a holiday that has no religious connection; regarding non-believers; as he states in his first sentence. Are religious groups trying to hijack thanksgiving now too? The Rabbis states Thanksgiving has no religious connection and than continues to attempt to make a religious connection. Perhaps the author can not accept human nature without trying to redefine hguman nature first.
When pride and arrogance are shelved...
opportunities of faith are made available.
Consider a color blind person, they have no true conception of the true beauty of creation, but try as we will to explain it...it will never substitute the power of living color.
The atheist...blind to the power of a merciful loving God, we try and explain it to them...but they just won't see. To the praise of God...His mercy endures forever, even for the faithless.
Brett- An alternative point of view to the one you have espoused in this and other threads:
The atheist loves life precisely because he fears death, not because of the pain or suffering that might be experienced, but becuase of the absolute end it brings.
The theist's love of life has nothing to do with the fear of death. To him, death is but a stop in some everlasting continuum.
Rabbi Steinsaltz's joke about atheism led me to think about how much of our posturing for and against religion has to do with establishing or defending our own identity. That is too bad, because the beautiful truth that religious practice (not "belief") gives us intimations of is that we are intimately united with all that is seen and unseen.
> A believer cannot love his real life like an
> atheist does because they think they are going to > an afterlife as an immortal in ecstasy.
You're speaking of only a certain groups of believers. I believe in God and I don't believe that after death I'm going to wander around "as an immortal in ecstacy". I expect to enter a past life review where I review my shortcomings and successes of this life in preparation for the next.
From my perspective "heaven" is the experience of amplified joy that comes from success and "hell" is the amplified pain from where I failed to live up to my highest understanding of how to behave in any given situation.
From my perspective, being alive is a gift from God; one that should be valued as the highest gift.
Atheism is not some juvenile rebellion but a mature conscious decision to deal with reality, to accept responsibility for your actions and to love your real life.
The believer has his sights firmly set on the afterlife because his religion has made death into something to truly fear. They believe they will actually experience thier death, so they will directly experience being ripped away from everything they know and love. No wonder they desperately grab onto a God to save them from that horror.
The good atheist, on the other hand, deals with what is real only and hence knows (not believes) there are no souls, gods or afterlives. He knows death is the end. Stop. He will die but he will not experience his death. The only thing he will experience are the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear. Religion dishonestly twists death into an unspeakable horror then offers up a God as a solution. It is easy to push the answer if you create the problem in the first place.
Also because there is no afterlife the good atheist regards every momemt of his real life as precious whereas believers devalue their real lives. For them real life is just some place to mark time in before their much better eternal afterlives begin.
A believer cannot love his real life like an atheist does because they think they are going to an afterlife as an immortal in ecstasy. The atheist is fully aware of the only human truth there is: You will die and you know it. Unlike the immortal who thinks he has eternity to wander around in the atheist knows he is mortal and every moment is a gift.
So in the end who is really giving the deepest thanks, the believer who has devalued both his real life and the only truth there is: his death; or the atheist who is truly thankful for every moment of his life.
> And of course, even they, most of the time,
> believe in the existence of the turkey.
Too often when discussing topics such as this people, myself specifically included, get overly serious. So I smiled when I read this statement. A sense of humor is a gift from God.
"Of course, a real atheist cannot, by definition, participate in thanksgiving to God. But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
The first sentence is tautological. As an atheist, I cannot thank, any more than I can hate or rebel against, anyone or anything in which I don't believe. Obviously. But to imply that "thanksgiving to God" is the only genuine or appropriate way to observe Thanksgiving Day in the United States is breathtakingly narrow-minded.
The second sentence is naive, wishful thinking. There are plenty of atheists who did not have a "stiff religious upbringing." This sentiment reveals the unstated premise that atheists could not possibly be right but, rather, must be "angry at God" or, at least, at the people who first spoke to them of God (and presumably botched the delivery). In my experience, many theists who have little experience of real atheists bring this unexamined prejudice to the discussion. They can't believe there can be such a thing as a "real atheist," which displays arrogance and a lack of imagination. How can someone who got the first sentence so right get the second sentence so wrong?
"Most non-believers are people who are not sure about, or not interested in religious matters. For these people, Thanksgiving can be a very good way of entering into religious practices without being frightened by priests, rituals, or houses of prayer. And of course, even they, most of the time, believe in the existence of the turkey."
No, most non-believers are people who think religious belief is an arbitrary, tradition-bound exercise in primitive, fear-based, ignorant supersition with no basis in objective reality. They may have arrived at this view after rebelling against the religion of their parents; they may have been raised free of undue influence and recognized the obvious on their own. Either way, they have something for which to be thankful - their intellectual independence.
Let's be clear: I'm one of "these people," and my refusal to "enter[] into religious practices" has nothing to do with fear of priests, rituals, or houses of prayer. They don't frighten me in the least, trust me. I won't enter houses of prayer because I've examined religion sufficiently to know that it has no more relationship to objective reality than crystal healing and ESP. That Abrahamic theism is a thousand or two years older makes no practical difference.
(As a vegetarian, I'm reluctant to stray from my main point here, but I have to say: OF COURSE the turkey exists! Does that make it food? But never mind . . .)
This panelist's attitude is condescending and ignorant as to how a "real atheist" thinks, which is insulting to a "real atheist." I'm disappointed that the Post can't find a rabbi to opine from a more informed position.
All Comments (57)
just hi
just hi http://helloworld.com just hi
[url=http://helloworld.com ]just hi[/url]
March 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 19, 2008 16:05
hello world
hello world http://helloworld.com hello world
[url=http://helloworld.com ]hello world[/url]
March 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2008 10:39
Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 14, 2008 5:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 14, 2008 05:04
Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 14, 2008 5:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 14, 2008 05:03
Hi! I'm Dr. Santana! I love your site! Looking for Viagra?
order viagra order viagra
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 11, 2008 9:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 09:21
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 10, 2008 3:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 03:03
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 10, 2008 3:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 03:03
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!
February 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 13:22
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!
February 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 13:22
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!
February 8, 2008 9:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 8, 2008 21:15
Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!
February 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 8, 2008 21:14
Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!
February 2, 2008 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 2, 2008 14:20
Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!
February 2, 2008 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 2, 2008 14:20
jsac bqvm qdikoycf gepfjkyit hiobtnpy hioce rixhpvmy http://www.cbkf.sjunwv.com
March 2, 2007 8:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:59
srmly gjeoraiq mlgbqf bgec mselh ihomvtfdl njrbm
March 2, 2007 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:56
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm Jewish by birth, but I'm more or less agnostic, and find spiritual enrichment in many religions, from my personal experiences in nature, interacting with people I know and don't know, etc.
Also, by saying that religious ceremonies allow us to step out of the river of life, I mean out of the flow of our day to day lives, not that religious ceremonies aren't a part of life.
December 29, 2006 10:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 29, 2006 10:17
Now, I didn't finish reading everything here, but it's AMAZING how many people missed the rather clever, ironic joke here:
"But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
I saw only one comment that subtly acknowledged it. I seriously doubt the Rabbi thinks atheism is a dying breed, and only arises out of rebellion against one's upbringing.
And I don't get the sense that he's asking whether "non-believers" should celebrate Thanksgiving, but rather, stating that Thanksgiving provides an opportunity for "non-believers" to have the kind of experience that a believer gets from religious ceremonies and rituals. And I think he's right. Religious ceremonies provide an opportunity for stepping out of the river of life in order to observe that river from its banks. Thanksgiving provides that opportunity in a non-religious way. If you think about it, his column is pointing out some rare common ground shared by atheists and believers.
December 29, 2006 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 29, 2006 10:07
This morning I saw an amazing scientific program about the origin of life on our planet.
One of the main pieces of information was that the elements, or main ingredients, for life to develop, were already present, contained within the meteorites showering on the earth.
As the substance of life is contained within a seed, soon to fertilise the ground. So amino acids and oxygen were present in the meteorites which hit the earth, in turn transforming these into a living organism.
What a better metaphor or comparison could I find, by watching these impressive images, than the projected sperm entering his ovary.
As if the entire system were in fact a womb, within which the male function was manifested by an overwhelming and continuous flow of comets, and the female being the large number of planets waiting for chance to play its part.
This, to me, is a rather magnificent demonstration of an all powerful force, if not G-d, what else ?
December 23, 2006 6:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 23, 2006 06:44
The atheist puts a great deal of energy into his position. "Thou dost protest too much." When a person is so bent on proving another belief wrong ( while his belief is right and true) I find something not quite right in such a pronounced stance. What would feel real and natural would be the agnostics point of view.
I myself, believe in G-d.
There are times when I am depressed that I find myself questioning G-ds existance. I KNOW it is I who has disconnected myself. See that word dis-connected? Before the dis, I WAS connected.
To what I cannot expalin in simple terms, other than when connected, I feel the connection to a source other than myself. I feel it, I know it, it's real, though I cannot see it with my eyes. I feel it with my soul...my being, my essence. Not with my brain. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. No one has the right to impose his/her belief on another. So as a member of the first religion believing in a non- physical G-d, I say live and let live. Judaism is about living life here and now to our fullest potential as human beings. You know, electric currents, though very real, are invisible to the eye. So what's the big deal that we cannot see G-d? We cannot see many things that science considers real.
December 21, 2006 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 21, 2006 16:31
Can one of the atheists explain to me how you can prove a negative, ie. how can you prove that G-d DOESN'T exist?
It would seem to me that, at best, you can only honestly say that you don't know if G-d exists.
December 21, 2006 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 21, 2006 15:03
Rob:
I tend to agree with you.
There are actually two issues here: "the knowledge and absolute truth that you are going to die" and the death event itself. I believe that both the believer and non-believer are together on the former but differ on the latter (other things too of course).
You could react to the knowledge that you are going to die in a variety of ways, but irrational fear would be the first reaction without any deeper contemplation. I guess in a sense both the atheist and theist take comfort in their different reactions to this absolute truth.
The theist decides to 'believe' in an afterlife which enables him to reduce death to a doorway to the afterlife realm.
The atheist cannot take comfort in things that have no palpable reality. To him 'belief' is at best wishful thinking. He draws comfort from the reality of death the reality of what he will experience, which is not death, but the last moments of his life. This is not a belief to be measured against other beliefs but an observable everyday reality. People die everyday in hospitals, nursing homes, road accidents, etc.
The problem is Western society tends to hide death, and hence the reality of death, from people behind morgues, closed coffins, etc. All we see instead is usually a wooden box and sadly a religious ceremony or speech, regardless, whether the deceased was religious or not.
I have witnessed my best friend die in front of me shortly after a motorcycle accident. Not that I wish that trauma on anyone, but there is no way I can be confused as to what actual death is. Although that was a bad and deeply shocking event, it does not have to be that way. If we still lived in extended familys then we would inevitably witness the deaths of our grandparents which would not be shocking and out of place but integrated into family and communal life.
Hence, although the inevitability of death can give rise to an initial fear both the theist and the atheist are taking comfort, the former in belief and latter in reality. The problem is the theist pays too high a price for his comfort.
His real life becomes infected with the lust for the afterlife. His real life cannot compete with an afterlife that is so much better and infinitely longer. Hence, the arbitrary requirements to get to that afterlife swamp the wants and needs of his real life.
What starts off as a small belief in an afterlife has to be inflated out more and more with other beliefs. You need a vehicle to get you to the afterlife, so you need to believe in soul. You need to believe in a God to run the afterlife (although he also needs to have some effect in real life too). You need to believe in a specific religion whose rituals properly appease that God and hence gain you entry into the afterlife. To follow that religion you need to believe that the religion's bible is absolute truth. The interpreted dictates of that dogma need to then effect your every real life choice, depending on your level of devoutness and piety.
Your real life and the real world in which it is conducted have now been hijacked. They have faded to become just some byproduct of God's arbitrary actions. But the only real human reality here is your faith all the rest, God included, are just phantoms created by that faith.
The atheist draws the same comfort against the inevitability of death without the confusion or intrusion of unreal entities. Also death still serves a purpose for the atheist, as encumbered by these huge frameworks of belief, it serves to heighten his awareness (and thankfulnesss) of his real life. Every second becomes a gift not to be wasted. Death can also be an advisor as the only question you need to answer is: "Would you be doing THIS if you were to die in the next minute?"
To gain the same level of comfort the theist has to swamp and confuse his real life with the unreal and render his death meaningless. That price is too high and frankly not necessary.
November 27, 2006 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:23
I have enjoyed reading the discussion here today.
First, I am agnostic lets be clear on that. As many fellow atheist and/or agnostic brethen, I was a little taken aback by narrowminded, somewhat offenseive statement by this article. For a man supposedly studied in theology his statement are disturbing. To think I'm rebelling or angry at God or confused somehow is plan crazy. I have found that atheist and agnostics have spent probably much more time exploring religious matters then most lay persons in the church, mosque, etc.
Of course we can be thankful as others have put so well previously. And yes...I believe in Turkey! (poorly executed joke I assume by the Rabbi)
November 27, 2006 6:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 18:16
That last one was me.
November 27, 2006 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 11:37
Brett-
In your first post in this thread you said:
"The believer has his sights firmly set on the afterlife because his religion has made death into something to truly fear." Without getting into the rest of your post, I think this is demonstrably false.
Let's start with a premise I think can be agreed upon. Death is the end of a human beings existence in the natural world, as we currently can measure and understand the natural world.
Let's next consider the athiest position that the natural world is all there is. Death for an individual, then, is the endpoint of all existence. For this reason, death, by and large, is something that is feared. (I hesitate to use the word "fear", because I think a lot of time is being wasted on symantic differences. Suffice it to say, given the choice of being alive or dead, I think it is common sense that most people would choose being alive and the vote would not even be close.)
Let's now consider the thesist position. The theist belives that the natural world is not all there is and that existence continues on afterward. Now let's consider two aspects of this, of which your initial statement focuses on only one. You rightly point out that if exitence continues after death, death becomes something that is actually experienced. With respect, this is immaterial. The important thing is not the instant of death but the existence beyond death, something that I would argue most religions present as a better existence than is currently had. To the theist death is transformed from the End of what is into the beginning of a will be.
Now one can argue that religion preys upon existing fears of death (pun intended), but religion does nothing to heighten that fear for the believer. It diminishes it.
November 27, 2006 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 11:37
I dream of the day when our scienctific and religious leaders are above belittling another's beliefs to seek validation of thier brand of absolutes.
I hope the mystery of how something came from nothing not continue to divide us.
I'm lonely and I love everything.
November 27, 2006 11:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 11:06
Silly me. I should have known there was a direct connection between religion and starving pilgrims. Learn something new every day.
November 27, 2006 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 10:31
C'mon, Anonymous, you know better than that! The Creator of reason can't be explained by reason, or expunged by it.
I'm glad you have faith in reality. Reality and God have a lot in common! ;-)
November 27, 2006 9:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 09:24
Ed:
Thinking you can sneak around your death and gain leverage over your invisible God through worship is true pride and arrogance.
An atheist is only blind to things that are not real. In his world wishful thinking does not trump reality. Show me the slightest scrap of reality about your soul, God or afterlife. Your faith is real but the object of your faith has no reality. It is just wilful arrogance and ignorance to believe in entities they are not real.
November 26, 2006 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 23:48
Rob:
An atheist can't fear his death. His death has nothing to do him, much like his birth. He does not experience death like the believer believes he will.
The atheist does not want to die, but then again neither does any human, as only humans are aware they were born to die.
The theist's "everlasting continuum" has nothing to do with the real world unless they believe in reincarnation. Hence, 80 years compared to untold billions is almost nothing. Hence, his real life is completely devalued.
The whole notion of the afterlife is really just trying to sneak around the absolute fact of your death. You have to believe it is a better place("everlasting continuum") as you are unlikely to fall in love with an idea of a worse place are you?
My piont is simple your highly evolved brain has a price: You know you are going to die. It has evolved to come up plans and ideas to get you out of every life threathening situation. Ideas of afterlives and the lesser ideas of Gods are such ideas. But to indulge these ideas at the expense of reality creates a worse problem than dying: Awareness after death. The horror of this requires an all powerful God to balance.
To be more brief the afterlife is the only important religious entity. God is just the ring master of the afterlife circus. But if the circus does not exist all you are left with is an idiot in a top hat. All believers should realise this. So if God is not the most important thing than their faith is really about their deaths and the passage of their souls to the afterlife.
Therefore, theists actually believe in a afterlife and God is only an ancillary requirement on that afterlife.
November 26, 2006 11:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 23:41
fern:
What you believe is hardly biblical then. You talk of God heads and karmic rewards and punishments and reincarnation. I thought that the type of reincarnation was the reward or punishment not some Catholic purgatory (joy machine).
Nonetheless, it involves a temporay afterlife or staging ground at least which means you believe you will experience your death while an atheist has no such concerns. Hence, like the Christian you need to grab onto to a God to balance the horror of experiencing your own death.
November 26, 2006 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 23:08
"The all-human expression of religious sentiment as an expression of the direct relationship between the individual and the Creator."
Ah, I see. Well, it's nice to know that religious people who don't believe that the universe was created are excluded from your "religious" Thanksgiving.
"But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
Wow. Really? You truly believe that it's impossible to lack belief in the existence of god/s without it being some sort of pathetic rebellion against a strict religious upbringing?
That'll be news to my religious atheistic friends, too.
One would think that Newsweek would take the time to make sure that its panelists at least knew about the existence of Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism before setting this thing up. Or are we only counting religions of the Book when we speak of "religion"? Which is odd, because apparently thanking the people in my life who have helped me become who I am (my parents, relatives, and friends for those I'm in direct contact with, and all of the people in the world who help to make the worldwide community better, who give more of themselves than is required so that humanity can survive and thrive, not to mention those who have contributed in a such a way in the past) is a religious act. And here I thought that it was just a *human* one.
November 26, 2006 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 13:36
Oops! Rick, that post above from last night, addressed to you from "Anonymous," was by me. I neglected to re-enter my name, etc. Sorry.
I don't understand the point of the "remember personal info?" box, if you still have to re-enter your name, e-mail, and url every time you post. For that matter, I don't even understand why it asks for e-mail and url when those pieces of information apparently have no effect on posts. But I guess those are questions for this site's administrators . . .
Sorry, again, for the inadvertent anonymity.
Paulie
November 26, 2006 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 11:55
What's a "non-beliver" and why do so called "Christians" use this term to futher separate and exclude others? If I believe we are one - I am you, you are me, we are God and you don't, can I call you a "non-believer."?
November 25, 2006 9:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 21:44
Rick -
In retrospect, my rhetoric was pretty strong. I overreacted to the tacit insult I saw in the original piece, which I still believe was there. I do apologize for being so heated about it, but you probably should understand that presenting the "other side of the coin" was pretty much my intent. You may not appreciate how tiresome it gets to be constantly assured that your atheism is merely because you're "angry at God," which makes no sense, or else "rebelling against your parents/community/fill-in-the-blank," which is infuriatingly patronizing.
Basically, he implied that there's no possible basis for atheism other than some kind of infantile rebellion against religion, which is nonsense (trying to keep it kinder and gentler this time). That struck me as either hostile or ignorant; either way, I was disappointed with the WP for making such a poor choice of a Rabbi to write on the subject.
Implicit in his whole approach was the premise that he's right, and atheists are confused and frightened; given the right kind of incentives and context (e.g., Thanksgiving), we pitiable lot can discover the joys of "entering into religious practices." Thanks, Rabbi! You're saying we atheists should be tolerated participants in Thanksgiving because it increases the likelihood of our ceasing to be atheists! Unstated premise: Inducing us to enter into religious practices is obviously a good thing, whether we know it or not. He either thinks we're all idiots or just doesn't understand atheism.
You said you're not interested in debating the merits of atheism vs. theism, and that's fine. But then you said this:
"Let's grant that their may be a reasoned position for athieism, but let us also grant that there may be a reasoned position for a believer position as well. One that is not anti-intellectual, that is open to reason and logic, that is not fear based nor founded in superstition."
Well, sure, I'm open to the possibility that there is such a reasoned position supporting god-belief. I just have yet to see one. My own reasoning leads me to the conclusion that, with so many people working on it without success, such a reasoned position doesn't exist. But I still remain open to seeing one, if it does. Maybe, if you're not interested in that discussion, somebody else here can show me one. Probably not; that's just my considered guess based on past experience.
Thanks for replying to my post, and sorry if I went a little too harsh there in my first post.
November 25, 2006 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 18:23
> The ACLU, would like nothing less then to take and
> remove all Christian/ religous items from all
> areas public and private for that matter. The
> Korean war memoral on Mt. Soledad comes to mind
> here. Which just happens to be a cross. So when
> are your types going to "clean" up grave sites as > well?
It is true that the ACLU does not want the federal government to take over the latin cross on Mt. Soledad because they see it as a violation of the Contitution's establishment clause. Reasonable people will disagree about how to interpret the constitution, to be sure, but your point is 100% valid - equal treatment. How that works out in practice is not always simple.
The line in your statement about graves caused me to visit the ACLU site to see where it came from. The ACLU says the following:
"Religious symbols on personal gravestones are vastly different from government-sponsored religious symbols or sectarian religious symbols, such as a 43- foot Latin cross on government-owned property. Gravestones and the symbols placed upon them are the choice of individual service members and their families. The ACLU would in fact vigorously defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, including veterans and service members, buried at National and State cemeteries to display the religious symbol of their choosing on their gravestone."
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26186leg20060717.html
November 25, 2006 1:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 13:38
Jenna and Ed for that matter>>> READ THE MESSAGES!! It wasn't Fern that had the quote it was me. You are so fired up to go after my faith that it has blinded you. As it seems if I was any other faith you wouldn't be so hot fired to get me, so as to not even mention the correct person.
And as for displays on goverment places I don't need any state ran anything, just the right to be treated equal. The ACLU, would like nothing less then to take and remove all Christian/ religous items from all areas public and private for that matter. The Korean war memoral on Mt. Soledad comes to mind here. Which just happens to be a cross. So when are your types going to "clean" up grave sites as well?
I go back to the fact all relgions are ok for you as long as it isn't Christian,or as long as you don't question morals or ethics of others.. And people will fall over each other, to make this point clear.
November 25, 2006 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 12:34
Jenna...thank you for your voice of reason in this storm of confusion! What we fail to realize, America is plagued with people with insideous lifestyles like no other time in history. Though it may appear that they are just assuming basic principle rights...sadly, they have an inescapable desire to take what we hold most dearly away to nullify the shame, guilt or public ridicule that is brought back at them for the way they want to live. My voice is not of hate...just the light of truth!
November 25, 2006 8:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 08:54
Fern said: Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me )
Fern's commment is a sad relfection on how misinformed some people are, and it explains the fear that some people feel about religious issues. I don't want to take away her right to pray openly anywhere. I just don't want her to impose her beliefs on me. Does Fern need to have a state-owned Jesus in the manger on public property to feel fully Christian? Won't the same display on her church's front lawn do the same, without having my government endorse her beliefs?
November 25, 2006 7:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 07:30
Fern said: Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me )
Fern's commment is a sad relfection on how misinformed some people are, and it explains the fear that some people feel about religious issues. I don't want to take away her right to pray openly anywhere. I just don't want her to impose her beliefs on me. Does Fern need to have a state-owned Jesus in the manger on public property to feel fully Christian? Won't the same display on her church's front lawn do the same, without having my government endorse her beliefs?
November 25, 2006 7:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 07:29
My, my, what thin skins people have. The Rabbi based his opinion and has been flamed by others making the exact same errors assuming they know what makes a believer!
Each person is an individual, one day we will realize that there is no one in those boxes we try to fit everyone in.
November 25, 2006 12:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 00:54
Fern:
But then that wouldn't pit Christians against the world. And honestly, it is seeming that the general posts in most of this forum is one that is against the God of the Bible.
If the person who wrote the commentary is Christian or Othordox Jew. The common line is the God of the Bible. Someone somewhere has to attack that person...
So where is the thankfulness of these persons? I personally don't see it, all I see is the ones who are claiming people to be narrow minded being the ones who are just what they see in others.
Honestly, I am thankful that here in the United States, as a Christian I can pray openly.. ( for the time being, as others would love to take that right from me ) then having to hide my faith like in other countries.
The Rabbi, has a point. Being Athesit or agnositic for that matter takes more faith and proof then that of someone who believes in a God.
As clinging onto the righteousness of mankind will fall sooner or later. As someone somewhere will always fail us somehow. Unless then you add the relative arguement into the mix, which only in reality adds chaos into the mix, as then no one has morals and everything is ok.
November 25, 2006 12:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 00:12
Good point. The question should have been asked in a neutral manner such as "What does the Thanksgiving holiday mean to you?"
November 24, 2006 5:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 17:49
"How a short essay on Thanksgiving ends up being a food fight between "atheists" and "believers" ... (sigh!)." - (Barry above)
Well, the question was set up to provoke one, wasn't it? When we're asked "Should non-believers celebrate Thanksgiving?" there's bound to be a fight. So far among the responses I've read here only Rev. Tully seems to have had a sensible reaction.
As for agnosticism or me atheism (an absence of belief in the existence of god(s)) is the only reasonable result of agnosticism, which is the idea that one should not accept as true any proposition which is not well supported by objective evidence and logical argument. I am only atheistic about one more god than those who accept Jesus but reject Allah, Zeus or Odin. I just apply the same agnostic standard to all of them, without exceptions.
November 24, 2006 3:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 15:06
I find it very interesting to see how these conversations wind on. It seems like at first the comments are thoughtful and respectful. But soon enough people feel the need to either attack what one person has said, or attack someone else's belief system.
I guess you would call me an agnostic. I believe there may be a god -- or a supernatural force that it different than us but is somehow cosmically related to us.
In terms of having a religion or defined belief system, I wonder which I should choose? Would I choose Christianity, Taoism, Wicca, Judaism, etc. etc.?
I believe if there is a superior force called God, then he/she/it will likely be benevolent to me for trying to lead a just life given my circumstances.
I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and I live in a society which is Christian. So I do find myself easily falling into the Christian mind-set.
In fact, at night when I pray, I do say some Christian prayers. But this is only a vehicle to give thanks to God or to the spirit of life and the world.
I think that all of the different spokespeople that begin these chats have the best intentions. And I give them thanks for their dedication to helping people bear the stuggles of life a little easier.
Peace out.
November 24, 2006 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 14:59
How a short essay on Thanksgiving ends up being a food fight between "atheists" and "believers" ... (sigh!).
The extremes of either end of the spectrum are just that -- extremes. Assuming that "atheists" can't know joy and are "blind to (God)" is just plain silly. Some HAVE heard "The Word" and found it lacking.
Likewise, "atheists" calling "believers" out as fearful and superstitious is a different color of the same intolerant zealotry shown by America's Christian Nationalists. Neither side can "prove" its position as superior to the other.
Maybe its the "agnostics" who have it right -- absent proof one way or the other, belief in the uncertainty of a God seems more logical, doncha think?
Just some food for thought, hopefully neither "stuffing" nor left-over "turkey".
November 24, 2006 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 14:00
Paulie writes: "No, most non-believers are people who think religious belief is an arbitrary, tradition-bound exercise in primitive, fear-based, ignorant supersition with no basis in objective reality. They may have arrived at this view after rebelling against the religion of their parents; they may have been raised free of undue influence and recognized the obvious on their own. Either way, they have something for which to be thankful - their intellectual independence."
I have no desire to argue athiest vs believer positions here, but doesn't this statement imply that believers are all being duped by either their co-religionists or their own fears and insecurities? Which may well be little more than the opposite side of the coin from which the writer is taking exception.
Let's grant that their may be a reasoned position for athieism, but let us also grant that there may be a reasoned position for a believer position as well. One that is not anti-intellectual, that is open to reason and logic, that is not fear based nor founded in superstition.
To simply wipe out all metaphysical thought and study with one word "superstition" is to deny that there is much in this world that is not understandable or explainable. To be open to this part of our world is not to deny objective reality, but to honor that part of it with our thought, reason and study.
November 24, 2006 1:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 13:34
"atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
One of the proudest days of my life was the day my oldest son, then age 10, was telling me about his day at school and mentioned that he and his friends had been talking about God. "I don't think I believe in God". he said, casually, and moved on to other news of the day. I knew at that point that he was learning to think for himself.
November 24, 2006 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 12:57
I believe in GOD, and am happy. I love life, and find it is too short to miss so many opportunities.
The physical world with all its materialities is too flawed and imperfect that there is nothing as pathetic as seeing a wealthy person who dies, and cannot bring any of the things he had so cherished (and fought hard to get) during his life.
Atheists used to say that believers are weak-minded people who need a crutch (in THE PERSON OF GOD) to lean on, or ignorant, or primitive, or not scientific enough.. and so on.
What they do not know is that belief in GOD sheds light on the origin and destiny of human being; in terms of its eternity. Life is life, and remains life forever. Our mortal body was not made to resist death, because Almighty GOD has created a better dwelling for our soul for its post-death life.
November 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 11:56
Rabbi Steinsatlz takes some sweeping generalizations about a holiday that has no religious connection; regarding non-believers; as he states in his first sentence. Are religious groups trying to hijack thanksgiving now too? The Rabbis states Thanksgiving has no religious connection and than continues to attempt to make a religious connection. Perhaps the author can not accept human nature without trying to redefine hguman nature first.
November 24, 2006 11:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 11:13
When pride and arrogance are shelved...
opportunities of faith are made available.
Consider a color blind person, they have no true conception of the true beauty of creation, but try as we will to explain it...it will never substitute the power of living color.
The atheist...blind to the power of a merciful loving God, we try and explain it to them...but they just won't see. To the praise of God...His mercy endures forever, even for the faithless.
November 24, 2006 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 09:46
Brett- An alternative point of view to the one you have espoused in this and other threads:
The atheist loves life precisely because he fears death, not because of the pain or suffering that might be experienced, but becuase of the absolute end it brings.
The theist's love of life has nothing to do with the fear of death. To him, death is but a stop in some everlasting continuum.
November 24, 2006 9:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 09:36
Rabbi Steinsaltz's joke about atheism led me to think about how much of our posturing for and against religion has to do with establishing or defending our own identity. That is too bad, because the beautiful truth that religious practice (not "belief") gives us intimations of is that we are intimately united with all that is seen and unseen.
November 24, 2006 9:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 09:23
> A believer cannot love his real life like an
> atheist does because they think they are going to > an afterlife as an immortal in ecstasy.
You're speaking of only a certain groups of believers. I believe in God and I don't believe that after death I'm going to wander around "as an immortal in ecstacy". I expect to enter a past life review where I review my shortcomings and successes of this life in preparation for the next.
From my perspective "heaven" is the experience of amplified joy that comes from success and "hell" is the amplified pain from where I failed to live up to my highest understanding of how to behave in any given situation.
From my perspective, being alive is a gift from God; one that should be valued as the highest gift.
November 24, 2006 2:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 02:27
Atheism is not some juvenile rebellion but a mature conscious decision to deal with reality, to accept responsibility for your actions and to love your real life.
The believer has his sights firmly set on the afterlife because his religion has made death into something to truly fear. They believe they will actually experience thier death, so they will directly experience being ripped away from everything they know and love. No wonder they desperately grab onto a God to save them from that horror.
The good atheist, on the other hand, deals with what is real only and hence knows (not believes) there are no souls, gods or afterlives. He knows death is the end. Stop. He will die but he will not experience his death. The only thing he will experience are the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear. Religion dishonestly twists death into an unspeakable horror then offers up a God as a solution. It is easy to push the answer if you create the problem in the first place.
Also because there is no afterlife the good atheist regards every momemt of his real life as precious whereas believers devalue their real lives. For them real life is just some place to mark time in before their much better eternal afterlives begin.
A believer cannot love his real life like an atheist does because they think they are going to an afterlife as an immortal in ecstasy. The atheist is fully aware of the only human truth there is: You will die and you know it. Unlike the immortal who thinks he has eternity to wander around in the atheist knows he is mortal and every moment is a gift.
So in the end who is really giving the deepest thanks, the believer who has devalued both his real life and the only truth there is: his death; or the atheist who is truly thankful for every moment of his life.
November 23, 2006 10:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 22:48
> And of course, even they, most of the time,
> believe in the existence of the turkey.
Too often when discussing topics such as this people, myself specifically included, get overly serious. So I smiled when I read this statement. A sense of humor is a gift from God.
November 23, 2006 10:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 22:11
Mr. Steinsaltz belongs in a Woodie Allen movie. He's a joke with no punch line. Oy, what's up with this shadrool turkey?
November 23, 2006 9:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 21:34
"Of course, a real atheist cannot, by definition, participate in thanksgiving to God. But atheists are, by now, a dying breed, because in order to raise them one has to have beforehand a very good stiff religious upbringing, against which they can rebel."
The first sentence is tautological. As an atheist, I cannot thank, any more than I can hate or rebel against, anyone or anything in which I don't believe. Obviously. But to imply that "thanksgiving to God" is the only genuine or appropriate way to observe Thanksgiving Day in the United States is breathtakingly narrow-minded.
The second sentence is naive, wishful thinking. There are plenty of atheists who did not have a "stiff religious upbringing." This sentiment reveals the unstated premise that atheists could not possibly be right but, rather, must be "angry at God" or, at least, at the people who first spoke to them of God (and presumably botched the delivery). In my experience, many theists who have little experience of real atheists bring this unexamined prejudice to the discussion. They can't believe there can be such a thing as a "real atheist," which displays arrogance and a lack of imagination. How can someone who got the first sentence so right get the second sentence so wrong?
"Most non-believers are people who are not sure about, or not interested in religious matters. For these people, Thanksgiving can be a very good way of entering into religious practices without being frightened by priests, rituals, or houses of prayer. And of course, even they, most of the time, believe in the existence of the turkey."
No, most non-believers are people who think religious belief is an arbitrary, tradition-bound exercise in primitive, fear-based, ignorant supersition with no basis in objective reality. They may have arrived at this view after rebelling against the religion of their parents; they may have been raised free of undue influence and recognized the obvious on their own. Either way, they have something for which to be thankful - their intellectual independence.
Let's be clear: I'm one of "these people," and my refusal to "enter[] into religious practices" has nothing to do with fear of priests, rituals, or houses of prayer. They don't frighten me in the least, trust me. I won't enter houses of prayer because I've examined religion sufficiently to know that it has no more relationship to objective reality than crystal healing and ESP. That Abrahamic theism is a thousand or two years older makes no practical difference.
(As a vegetarian, I'm reluctant to stray from my main point here, but I have to say: OF COURSE the turkey exists! Does that make it food? But never mind . . .)
This panelist's attitude is condescending and ignorant as to how a "real atheist" thinks, which is insulting to a "real atheist." I'm disappointed that the Post can't find a rabbi to opine from a more informed position.
November 23, 2006 6:57 PM |