cyber,
But is this something you know to be an absolute truth, or is this itself a matter of faith?
Why do you assume I haven't? Could it be instead that my approach to my own subjective experiences is different from yours?
How can your own subjective experiences be objective? What would you say to the schyzophrenic for whom the voices they hear are real?
Is that really any different than expressing our love for someone, or our anger at someone? When we are angry, generally it is at something, even if at ourselves.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying both that you are trying to offer an argument against faith in something physically not seen as well as maintaining faith in the unseen?
Is it possible to communicate to a person that you have faith in them without coming into contact with them? I don't see any difference.
What is empirical about an I statement?
Science and metaphysics have nothing to do with each other. Quantum physics does hold that the nature of the universe is a bit more complex than the way we see it ourselves, but this does not become proof of something beyond the material world. It is simply another way of viewing the material world.
When did he claim that recital is prayer?
That statement was never made by myself or the author. He's talking about why people don't abandon Judaism, why people stay with it, not the definition of what makes a Jew. And he's not addressing members of other religions. This is an article for Jews in a Jewish magazine. I presented it because the issues it raises are more universal. If he was addressing an interfaith audience, he would not have stated things the same way. imo, the definition of what makes a person a member of any group is based primarily on general consensus within that community and much more secondarily on the views of the rest of the world.
I never detected any slur.
How else should he refer to his own religion among a group of co-religionists? And as a Jew, it is entirely his right to define. Whether or not his co-religionists will agree with him is another matter, but as a Jew he absolutely has a right to interpretation, and time will tell if his interpretation is honored by the Jewish Community.
Then whose is it, if not the Jewish community? It is the Jewish community that determines the direction Judaism will take as it evolves, as it has many times in the past.
Being Jewish is absolutely limited to Judaism, as is Judaism. Learning about Judaism is not any more than learning about any other religion, but the actual religion is for the Jewish people, especially because it is a tribal religion by nature that makes no claim to universality.
For me, that is absolutely true, but I also think there are more levels to prayer, and more than one thing to gain from it. And I don't see the lack of belief in God as anything that would keep someone from being able to effectively pray. They may even commune with God, in their own way.
I didn't think it was profound. I thought it was lacking foundation. And implying that you have special knowledge that I lack hardly puts you on the high ground. It only shows that you have been very taken by your own subjective experiences, to the point that you have become blind to the contrary subjective experiences of others. There are many lenses with which we can view the world.
A person, unlike God, is something we can all point to and agree in its existence and general nature. You're also addressing something different here. You're addressing an individual's behavior that we interpret as love, that creates chemical reactions within us when we either reciprocate or feel differently. Is there a metaphysical thing called love, or is it simply a label we give to the feelings and sensations we associate with a certain state of being?
There was a time when some men believed in a physical dome surrounding the earth, a firmament, upon the top of which was the throne of God. Then we reached the heavens. Lack of knowledge about something is not proof of a metaphysic, nor does it necessitate the metaphysic of our choice to be true. It only shows us that we do not have all the answers.
This is a discussion forum. I presented the topic to create a discussion. How much discussion can happen if we only speak with those who agree with us, or only to say we agree with others? Your contribution has enriched this thread, as have those of everyone who have contributed. Otherwise it would be a bit dull. Shalom u'vrachah.
Dauer
I am saying that faith is not an emotion, but metaphysically transcends it.
But is this something you know to be an absolute truth, or is this itself a matter of faith?
When you see communication you will 'know'.
Why do you assume I haven't? Could it be instead that my approach to my own subjective experiences is different from yours?
Objective communication and experiences... he is real.
How can your own subjective experiences be objective? What would you say to the schyzophrenic for whom the voices they hear are real?
If emotions are communicated then I might agree, but I am saying that faith and being faithful requires some form of communication.
Is that really any different than expressing our love for someone, or our anger at someone? When we are angry, generally it is at something, even if at ourselves.
I am consciously countering a definition of 'faith' that involves believing in something physically not seen... the only unseen is God or another soul, but the communication must be attempted.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying both that you are trying to offer an argument against faith in something physically not seen as well as maintaining faith in the unseen?
If someone can communicate to a person a feeling without being near them, seeing, or talking to them, then I accept that being faithful, having faith, or placing faith are all legitimate using feelings.
Is it possible to communicate to a person that you have faith in them without coming into contact with them? I don't see any difference.
I am saying that faith is humanly, rationally, emperically, biblicly, and spiritually not that... for me.
What is empirical about an I statement?
Could be, I'm not familiar with that argument. I was simply saying that given known science, including entanglement, relativity, and quantum physics, that people are really something metaphysical and unseen. Since I don't know all science you can call it my unfounded opinion if you wish, but I call it a rationalization.
Science and metaphysics have nothing to do with each other. Quantum physics does hold that the nature of the universe is a bit more complex than the way we see it ourselves, but this does not become proof of something beyond the material world. It is simply another way of viewing the material world.
Sorry, I did not discount that he prefers to think that recital is prayer. Recital is not prayer, but only repeating someone elses words... he is not trying to communicate. The words are not his.
When did he claim that recital is prayer?
I agree, per the author's words and yours that anyone's generalization of whatever 'Jewish' means is irrelevant to religion, and includes atheists who do not believe in God, or other religion including Christianity and Islam, and that it simply means someone who wishes to call themselves or to be called Jewish. I agree.
That statement was never made by myself or the author. He's talking about why people don't abandon Judaism, why people stay with it, not the definition of what makes a Jew. And he's not addressing members of other religions. This is an article for Jews in a Jewish magazine. I presented it because the issues it raises are more universal. If he was addressing an interfaith audience, he would not have stated things the same way. imo, the definition of what makes a person a member of any group is based primarily on general consensus within that community and much more secondarily on the views of the rest of the world.
There is no ethnocentric slur intended by me
I never detected any slur.
if I am in the author's presence I will remind him when he says, "OUR religion"... that it is not his to define,
How else should he refer to his own religion among a group of co-religionists? And as a Jew, it is entirely his right to define. Whether or not his co-religionists will agree with him is another matter, but as a Jew he absolutely has a right to interpretation, and time will tell if his interpretation is honored by the Jewish Community.
nor the property of those who call themselves Jewish.
Then whose is it, if not the Jewish community? It is the Jewish community that determines the direction Judaism will take as it evolves, as it has many times in the past.
Judaism is not limited to those who are Jewish and neither is being Jewish limited to Judaism.
Being Jewish is absolutely limited to Judaism, as is Judaism. Learning about Judaism is not any more than learning about any other religion, but the actual religion is for the Jewish people, especially because it is a tribal religion by nature that makes no claim to universality.
To commune with God.
For me, that is absolutely true, but I also think there are more levels to prayer, and more than one thing to gain from it. And I don't see the lack of belief in God as anything that would keep someone from being able to effectively pray. They may even commune with God, in their own way.
A profound statement wasn't it. If the Universe lies to you as you read my words, then it will serve very little purpose.
I didn't think it was profound. I thought it was lacking foundation. And implying that you have special knowledge that I lack hardly puts you on the high ground. It only shows that you have been very taken by your own subjective experiences, to the point that you have become blind to the contrary subjective experiences of others. There are many lenses with which we can view the world.
It can not be "proven" that any other person loves you, or places faith in you, or is truthful to you... not with any science experiment (proof), but there will be evidence in interaction over time.
A person, unlike God, is something we can all point to and agree in its existence and general nature. You're also addressing something different here. You're addressing an individual's behavior that we interpret as love, that creates chemical reactions within us when we either reciprocate or feel differently. Is there a metaphysical thing called love, or is it simply a label we give to the feelings and sensations we associate with a certain state of being?
The reason is not due to a lack of science, but because that they each require the soul, and the soul is metaphysical.
There was a time when some men believed in a physical dome surrounding the earth, a firmament, upon the top of which was the throne of God. Then we reached the heavens. Lack of knowledge about something is not proof of a metaphysic, nor does it necessitate the metaphysic of our choice to be true. It only shows us that we do not have all the answers.
Dauer, I got into this subject because it interested me, not to draw conflict. Thank you for sharing it and I am happy to share. Peace be to you.
This is a discussion forum. I presented the topic to create a discussion. How much discussion can happen if we only speak with those who agree with us, or only to say we agree with others? Your contribution has enriched this thread, as have those of everyone who have contributed. Otherwise it would be a bit dull. Shalom u'vrachah.
Dauer