You mistake me for a someone who takes the literal religion seriously though. I only identify with what I see from Jesus as a Biblical figure and some of his lessons. I do however pray to God but that is normally reserved for certain things that I think are important enough to pray about.
I am trying not to so mistake you; I think something further down in this post will give me a way to clarify my criticism re: your profession of Christianity. (And by 'criticism' I mean that there is a distinction to be made, not that judgement has been passed!)
This shows relatively little appreciation for human nature. Many individuals raised without a religion subsequently seek one, for both cultural reasons (it is something most people have) and personal reasons (many people so raised feel that they are 'missing' something). When a person seeks out a religion to satisfy that inner void, they can turn in any number of directions, and embracing the common faith of your nation is not unusual.
If they were in a truly secular environment their nation would have no common faith to embrace. No faith would exist in that type of environment.
Huh?! By this definition, no secular environment exists anywhere on Planet Earth!!
A 'secular environment', in the context I was using, referred to a single household. Many Jews in the West are raised with the knowledge of their Jewishness, but with no overt religious practice or feeling (in recent history this flowed in many cases from scars of the Holocaust, but Jews have been increasingly secularised since the 19th century). Someone raised in a secular household may feel that their life is empty without metaphysical or transcendent meaning, and seek that in a common religion in their land of birth.
In broader terms, one might even call some countries a 'secular environment', as public religiosity is increasingly uncommon in,
e.g., much of western Europe, and the secular status of many governments is encoded in the law (
e.g., the USA & France). In such environments, religion is not a matter of public or pervasive pressure--such as that found in many Muslim countries where religious law rules--and it is left to personal decision. However, the nature of the religious community is seldom in any doubt; following the examples above, one can easily conclude that Roman Catholicism dominates French religious life and Protestantism (increasingly evangelical in nature) predominates in American culture. Someone raised in a secular household and seeking a religious experience could easily enough sample this faith, no?
As I said, out of respect for my cultural heritage. Judaism is a pervasive civilisation, and not really analogous to Celtic origins for an American--or, in most respects, even for an Irishman. The ancient Celtic cultures have been all-but obliterated, and do not have the force of a living tradition like Judaism. And no, I am not dogging the Irish! For the record, I have Irish, Scots, Polish, Sicilian, Bulgarian, and Jewish roots, which makes me a typical American mutt. 
The main reason why the Jewish God has become as pervasive is due to the existence of Christianity. Before that there was considerably less interest in the Jewish faith, Paul and Peter had to make it palatable for the Gentile. That is also why the pagan faith of the Irish is no longer what it used to be (well same goes for many other European belief systems to an extent).
You mistake my meaning. I meant that Judaism penetrates and permeates the identity of those raised in full knowledge of their Jewishness, and that such an identity comes with easily-identifiable cultural markers that have wide circulation amongst co-religionists. Judaism is not only a religion, it is a cultural and national identity. Your reference to Celtic heritage has almost nothing akin to this; being raised with knowledge of Irish roots does not seem to predispose one to particular acts and traits in a similar way.
It is, in fact, the Christian tendency to denigrate this life in comparison with the next which gets me angry. That simple and pervasive denial of life, and the criminalisation of its many healthy instincts such as sex, may be the single greatest crime of Western civilisation. Moving the emphasis from the life we have to another, illusory, world has had disastrous ramifications for human belief systems and cultural constructs.
I disagree, the afterlife shouldn't be something that changes how you live in this life. I appreciate this life fully as it is, afterlife or no afterlife. I would like to believe my afterlife would be better than the current life, but that can't be an expectation imo. [...] What ramifications do you speak of? Whoever thinks about their afterlife more than their current one is a fool. All it is good for is fantasy, because you have no way of knowing what you will go through after you die specifically.
The knowledge, instilled by a religious faith, that one should live a certain way to avoid damnation
does alter the way that one lives; it would have to! If one sincerely believes in heaven and hell, one cannot live life without bearing those beliefs in mind, even if only in the back of one's mind. And the simple fact of doing so means that religiously-inspired 'morality' trumps natural morality, leaving us with ridiculous presumptions with regard to right and wrong. The common canard that religion makes people more ethical is destroyed by even a cursory examination of the evidence.
Anyroad, I admire your expressed position on the afterlife and this life, but I still feel that it contradicts even a basic, spiritualised acceptance of Christianity.
Sex is criminalized (outside of marriage) due to it being just for pleasure and not procreation.
Why? It offers both pleasure
and procreation, so why should one have any stigma attached at all? This is a perfect example of religious views intruding on natural grounds, offering bizarre rationalisations for denying life. Sex, in its pleasurable aspects,
is a part of this life; of human life. Denying it in any way, whether through enforced social codes (strict monogamy, prohibition of extramarital sex,
etc.) or internalised injunctions (as against masturbation) is, in my view, criminal in itself. Christianity's obscene position on human sexuality (historically speaking) is reason enough to condemn it as immoral and unnatural; as
anti-life.
I would consider converting to Judaism as moving backwards ...
Thanks to Christianity's violent usurpation of Jewish history, sure! But without the inherently-antisemitic theology of supercession, how could it be a 'step backward'? Rather than, say, a step laterally, into a merely
different condition?
I don't associate myself really with Christianity either, I just say that to avoid having to explain things to people. They don't want me to rant on why I hate religion and only value spirituality. Normally I just avoid religion or spirituality altogether. Most people can't understand it anyways. [ ... ]
Your identification with and commitment to Christianity still amazes me, given this position.
It sure would if I identified myself truly with a religion and not with spirituality. I don't take the traditional institutions that seriously however. I only identify with Christianity in that I like the teachings of Jesus (well most of them) and that I pray to God. I sure as hell don't live my life like a Christian to be honest. So where is the commitment?
This is where I need to establish a definitional difference between religion and spirituality, because in character you describe yourself in spiritualistic terms, yet the basic facts of the faith you have described are entirely religious.
Let's start with 'spirituality'; is this an acceptable definition? "
The quality or condition of being spiritual; attachment to or regard for things of the spirit as opposed to material or worldly interests." But what, then, is 'spirit'? I can think of several approaches: That of
"the animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life", as found in vitalist philosophy (cf. Bergson). Or we could locate it in the issue of mind-body duality (cf. Descartes), as with the following: "
Incorporeal or immaterial being, as opposed to body or matter; being or intelligence conceived as distinct from, or independent of, anything physical or material" and "
The immaterial intelligent or sentient element or part of a person, frequently in implied or expressed contrast to the body". Spirituality, then, is a very vague term, implying only that there is an essential distinction between
this existence and a 'higher' state of being, one which may be entered through ritual, or prayer, or upon the body's death, or what-have-you. In itself, spirituality has no dogmatic features beyond this core belief in the immaterial realm.
Religion, however, is entirely dependent upon dogmatic elements. I will define 'religious' as being: "
Imbued with religion; exhibiting the spiritual or practical effects of religion; pious, godly, god-fearing, devout". Okay, then, what is 'religion'? I think a definition that should agree with nearly any dictionary might contain such elements as follows: "
Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life." Do you see from this why I cannot understand or accept the distinction which you draw between your spiritualism and religiosity? Simply by committing yourself to the proposition "There is a G-d", you are taking a
religious position, not a spiritual one. As for my reference to your "commitment to Christianity", this flows directly from your belief that Jesus and G-d are one. Viewing Jesus in such a way produces a fundamentally religious principle.
Were your feelings for Jesus restricted to the appreciation for his teaching noted above, I would say that I entirely share them, and that neither of our positions were religious. Were you to restrict yourself to such an appreciation and combine that with "prayer to G-d", I would say that you practiced a thoroughly devolved form of Judaism. But if you combine that appreciation for Jesus' teachings with the belief that Jesus is G-d / the 'son' of G-d, you have stepped thoroughly inside the Christian camp. More so, in fact, than even the Mormons, who call themselves Christians despite a theology that entirely diverges from the fundamental identifying marks of faith. In sum, I will suggest that your stated positions on Jesus and G-d make you a religious Christian, whether or not you identify with a particular denomination or set of beliefs and practices. Simply believing in G-d makes you religious, by definition, and believing specifically in the notion that Jesus is G-d makes you a Christian.
Most Christians (and Jews) take most of those miracles literally. They are the actions of an omnipotent God, that can do as it chooses and doesn't have to explain its actions to any human. That it would be even bother with doing so is basically a nice gesture.
Ah, but they are only such actions if they can be shown to have occurred, eh? If all they are is stories, then they are not the "actions of an omnipotent G-d", but rather the moral, political, and military tales of an ancient Canaanite culture, with no more veracity as fact than the tales of Odin One-Eye or Gilgamesh.
They refuse to surrender because they have faith that the documents and things written are true. Their faith is in humans to take care of such documents and keep them from being perverted and misused. Such faith in humans to handle the words of a God correctly is very foolish. Those are religious people, they have faith in that their religion is right in how it preserved its texts.
This cuts, again, right to heart of my claim that yours is a religious faith. You, too, have faith in those words, because they are the only source of practical (material) validation for your belief that Jesus is G-d. Clearly the words that appear there about Jesus have some personal significance. If someone showed (somehow) that
none of it was accurate, what form then could such a faith as yours take? Can there be a Christ without a Jesus?
They have no personal connection with God usually, just a placebo effect attached to the other members of their church's experiences.
This is, depending on the reader's point of view, either a very rude assumption about the spiritual feelings of others, or an equally apt description of
all non-insane members of a congregation!
Psychologically speaking, it is entirely possible for
everyone to be 'faking it' (whether consciously or--in most cases--not) as a matter of course; or, they could
all be feeling the same thing, irrespective of their desire to validate and believe the events in those ancient texts.
In this you disagree with Christianity as a whole, both in its traditions and in its contemporary theology. But I would agree with you here: As I said some time earlier, if someone believed sincerely that Jesus was G-d, he should convert to Judaism and keep the commandments! Jesus himself said that 'not one yod nor crown should be removed from the law until its purpose is fulfiled.' (Christians may have decided later that it was fulfiled in Jesus' death, but this ignores the purpose Jesus himself would have grown up with--and which his audience would have understood--namely, the perfection of the earth: tikkun olam).
No you are still supposed to keep the commandments and such as a Christian. Jesus died so people can be forgiven and go and sin no more. It doesn't give you a free pass to the afterlife if you actually read the New Testament. There are still morals that have to be adhered to, hence the work in progress thing. Christians are not perfect after being saved, they still sin and still need to work on what causes them to sin. As you live out your days you work to be more perfect, it is a process and no overnight change.
I can entirely agree.
The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the people living in the Mesopotamian region most likely would have stood in the way of a Jewish state there considering that the area was controlled by those people until the Brits decided to make a Jewish Israel. I do not see the state of Israel being anywhere near inevitable, it was extremely reliant on the actions of Europe. The rise of fascism in Europe was the main reason for the immigration to Palestine by Jews.
Many people
did stand in the way, and Israel won its war of independence without any help from Europe or the US. That fact alone makes it, in hindsight, an inevitability, no?
Its prosperity afterward, of course,
did depend upon the actions of Europe (such as the French military assistance before and following the Suez Crisis, and the German economic aid that followed Adenauer's decision).
The rise of fascism certainly inspired emigration to Palestine, but this emigration was frequently stopped and had to proceed in small trickles, mostly illegally, for the entire latter period of British control. Even in 1948, on the eve of independence, the British still kept emigrants from landing in Palestine with specially-constructed internment camps on Cyprus. And by making fascism the principle motivator, you ignore the compelling ancient alien case which preceded it by several decades and which provided, by numbers, much more of the emigration to Palestine than came in the later 30s and 40s. The British were far more lax about it in the early years of the Mandate.
... I think that the Islamists would have killed off all the Jews living in the area of Palestine for example and prevented them successfully from ever residing there again.
Oh? They seem to have done a lousy job fighting the Haganah and Irgun in the Mandate era, and certainly in the wars that followed with the IDF. Look at the early history of conflict in Palestine and then tell me that defeat was likely for the ancient aliens. These were motivated, disciplined, well-equipped colonists, and they did as well against the Arabs as European armies had done only a short time before.
This would make for a whole different conversation, so if someone wants to start that in another thread, I'm game. The situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better than to be tacked onto a discussion of Christian faith and dogma...
This thread was about what the Bible said in regards to homosexuality, and it has gone a while different direction. It wasn't about my personal opinion on homosexuality, Christianity or anything else. Sure has turned out that way though lol. I don't think the situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better or worse. I would gladly kill everyone there if it were up to me. They don't get special treatment as the rest of the world is just as deserving of death.
I didn't mean that the people deserved anything, but that the topic--if it is to be started--should be in a thread with an obvious title, which would more easily invite interested parties to join in.
... At age 23 as I have said before is when I started to believe a god exists (I didn't get more specific until after that). None of that was based on facts in the least, it was acquired faith in God not religion.
This bring us neatly back to the main point made above. I understand that your experience gave you a faith in G-d, but I question the form it has taken. What makes it the
Christian G-d that you revere, and not another, if not the culture in which you have been raised and the form of G-d with which you are most familiar?
An admirable position; independence of thought is always respectable. One caveat I would add, however, is the danger of taking firm opinions on the basis of incomplete or fragmentary data. It is not a surrender of personal judgement to look for support or criticism of your positions in scholarly works and original sources. It is, in fact, the most intellectually honest path available...
What firm opinions? When I express Christianity's views as I see them, then I am spouting the opinions of an organized religion as I see them. That is what I was doing earlier in this thread in regards to homosexuality. My personal opinions are different.
What opinions, you ask? What, then, of the assertion that Jesus is G-d and/or the 'son of G-d? That he died for our sins? These
are beliefs that you hold, yes?
{General grip: Why is "med-i-ta-tion" turned into "sleeping with my head in the toilet"?! Is there a general list of these things posted somewhere, 'cuz it's getting really frustrating to find them by accident!
}
