[billw55]

I think it has always been assumed that a presidential candidate who openly professed to be non-christian would have no chance of getting elected, due to loss of christian votes. I certainly believe this was the case in the past; I wonder if it is really still true today.

[gwnn]

This might be on topic on whether they would vote for an atheist president (I had a video before but my poitn was this part of it):

http://atheism.about...han-Rapists.htm

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2013-August-26, 07:08

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 06:48, said:

I think it has always been assumed that a presidential candidate who openly professed to be non-christian would have no chance of getting elected, due to loss of christian votes. I certainly believe this was the case in the past; I wonder if it is really still true today.

Guessing: I think being Jewish would cost some votes, but not so many that it would prevent someone of the Jewish faith from becoming president. I expect s/he would have to be prepared to deal with more questions about the link between his/her religion and his/her politics than a Christian would, but religion is part of who a person is and I think it is reasonable to ask about how religious beliefs, or other fundamental attitudes toward life, would affect his/her conduct of the presidency. Supposedly Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer from time to time. I imagine that most of us hope that astrological views played no role in her husband's decisions as president. I don't mean to be equating astrology with religion, I am only saying a worldview is important, and voters quite properly are interested in the basis on which a person acts.


These things are tricky. When I was young I had many jobs. Often they asked on the application form about my relgion and I put down Presbyterian. This was not a return to the faith of my upbringing, it was that I wanted the job. When I was finishing graduate school I figured it was time that I play it straight. I interviewed at a college that had a historically religious background but was not thought of as religions. It was clear that my lack of religious affiliation/commitment was a problem. A Jewish friend interviewed at a similar, but not the same, college. He reported that the only item of faith that was brought up was whether he would have objections to teaching on Saturdays. I get the idea that' in many cases, to get the job you need to believe in some God. It didn't matter much which one. Perhaps not Allah though, but this was not an issue I heard much about in my youth.

[mycroft]

Well, I just was involved in the process of getting a Saudi Arabian Visa. I'm told Jewish < Atheist < "non-Muslim" < various forms of Christianity < what's Right on the forms, for having the visa accepted.

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2013-August-26, 11:01, said:

Well, I just was involved in the process of getting a Saudi Arabian Visa. I'm told Jewish < Atheist < "non-Muslim" < various forms of Christianity < what's Right on the forms, for having the visa accepted.

Yet you still want one and do not refuse it even if perhaps at a great cost to you.

[mycroft]

That supposition is not necessarily supported by the evidence :-)

I *have* one. That doesn't mean I *want* it, or what the cost is. It's what the cost could have been if I didn't get it.

[32519]

A question to my Jewish brethren:

I cannot find the word "Satan" in the original Hebrew. If it does appear there, then where (what passages)?

I am not interested in the Westernised transliteration of the Greek word Satanas which became the word Satan simply by dropping the "as." The Hebrew has "Adversary" which became "Satan."

Can someone help? Billow55 or Art maybe?

[32519]

32519, on 2013-October-06, 01:01, said:

A question to my Jewish brethren:

I cannot find the word "Satan" in the original Hebrew. If it does appear there, then where (what passages)?

I am not interested in the Westernised transliteration of the Greek word Satanas which became the word Satan simply by dropping the "as." The Hebrew has "Adversary" which became "Satan."

Can someone help? Billow55 or Art maybe?

Is there anyone else who can help here? Your local Rabbi maybe?

The question is of paramount importance. The Hebrew Old Testament MUST confirm the New Testament. Any character or concept appearing in the New Testament which does not appear (or cannot be found, and thus confirmed by) in the Hebrew Old Testament, either, a) needs to be rejected as false/wrong, or b) the more likely reason, it is nothing more than a translation error which needs to be corrected.

For 2000 years now, non-Jews have been blaming everything that goes wrong (personal or otherwise), on this character (whom they gave the name Satan), supposedly a fallen angel and the source of all evil.

If this character cannot be found in the Hebrew Old Testament, it does not belong in the Westernised Bible either, both the Old and the New Testament.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-October-06, 07:54, said:

The question is of paramount importance. The Hebrew Old Testament MUST confirm the New Testament. Any character or concept appearing in the New Testament which does not appear (or cannot be found, and thus confirmed by) in the Hebrew Old Testament, either, a) needs to be rejected as false/wrong, or b) the more likely reason, it is nothing more than a translation error which needs to be corrected.

So the Old Testament is immutable, while the New Testament is not? Why can it not be the other way round?

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-06, 08:04, said:

So the Old Testament is immutable, while the New Testament is not? Why can it not be the other way round?

What is the point in believing any claim of the supernatural that cannot be objectively verified, regardless of source?

[blackshoe]

If it is "supernatural" it cannot, by definition, be objectively verified, so you're going in circles.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 09:45, said:

If it is "supernatural" it cannot, by definition, be objectively verified, so you're going in circles.

That is the point. Belief of that sort is based on faith that the words of man are accurate about what cannot be known objectively.

[blackshoe]

So what you're really saying is that there is no point in faith.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2013-October-06, 09:40, said:

What is the point in believing any claim of the supernatural that cannot be objectively verified, regardless of source?

Why are you quoting me? I'm sure the OP has his reasons for believing this stuff; I don't see how I can know what they are.

[gwnn]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 09:45, said:

If it is "supernatural" it cannot, by definition, be objectively verified, so you're going in circles.

Where do you see that in the definition? Any well-documented occasion of a natural law being suspended is an objectively verified of the supernatural. Of course this is not a black-and-white issue (nothing ever is), though.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 09:56, said:

So what you're really saying is that there is no point in faith.

Well, it's a good thing many people have it, especially those with a poorly-developed moral sense. One poster has stated that his belief in reward and punishment by a supernatural being is what prevents him from committing murder and other crimes. If there are others like him, I'm safer if they have faith.

Although...perhaps it is the belief in the rewarding/punishing being that prevents a mature moral consciousness from developing.

[blackshoe]

What, precisely, is a moral sense? Does everyone have one? Where did they get it? How does a moral sense differ from a mature moral consciousness?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 09:56, said:

So what you're really saying is that there is no point in faith.

Right. No point other than a possible psychological appeasement of a basic fear of the unknown.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-06, 10:01, said:

Why are you quoting me? I'm sure the OP has his reasons for believing this stuff; I don't see how I can know what they are.

I quoted you because I thought you brought up an interesting point - and I expanded on that point with my comment. That's all.

[32519]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-06, 08:04, said:

So the Old Testament is immutable, while the New Testament is not? Why can it not be the other way round?

The Old Testament is not only a history of the Jews, it is also crammed with prophecies, 80+% which have already been fulfilled. The remaining whatever % all have to do with the consummation of the world as we currently know it. Because the Old Testament foretold much of what we read in the New Testament, it MUST also confirm what we read in the New Testament as well.

And therein lies the reason why I am appealing to my Jewish brethren whether or not this character, which the Western translators have dubbed “Satan,” occurs in the original Hebrew. They know their sacred writings better than anyone else. With the resources currently at my disposal, I cannot find it/him. To ascribe all the evil and wickedness in the world to a fictitious non-existent entity is not only wrong, it is also misleading.

Come on Billow/Art – let me hear from you or your local Rabbi. I am open for correction. If I am misreading this stuff, then put me on the right track.