How does one "choose" a Belief System?

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Apologies @Jae that comment was for @Pontifex Geronimo 13

 

[BetteTheRed]

Yes. But do you think he died for the the glory of a kingdom of the litigious that was already in place? If it was and remains all about the letter of the law, what exactly did Jesus change for them and how would being a Messianic Jew be any different from a legalistic Pharisee, whom Jesus would challenge?

I think you need a bit more nuance in your understanding of the Jewish sects and temple authorities. The Pharisees with whom Jesus argued, were just a Jew arguing with other Jews about Torah; they would eventually become the synagogue/meeting place Jews that we know today. The temple authorities, and those in Jewish society who collaborated with the Romans were more problematic, and more responsible, IMHO, in bringing about his crucifixion.

The reason a Jew cannot become a Christian and remain a Jew is because the Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, not divine.

 

[Jaebius]

I think you need a bit more nuance in your understanding of the Jewish sects and temple authorities. The Pharisees with whom Jesus argued, were just a Jew arguing with other Jews about Torah; they would eventually become the synagogue/meeting place Jews that we know today. The temple authorities, and those in Jewish society who collaborated with the Romans were more problematic, and more responsible, IMHO, in bringing about his crucifixion.

The reason a Jew cannot become a Christian and remain a Jew is because the Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, not divine.

I'll share that with my Messianic Jewish friend. She's absolutely sure she's a Jew.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

The dichotomy as I've learned it is grafted on vs. cut off.

Yes, you are right. I was just thinking that though they have been broken off, they could still be grafted back on by simple faith in Jesus.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

 

[Luce NDs]

In the bs that POTUS is innocent of all demos activity ... could this cause a tempest in the tea Pot or Tea Party?

What if the POTUS has crewed the demos ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think you need a bit more nuance in your understanding of the Jewish sects and temple authorities. The Pharisees with whom Jesus argued, were just a Jew arguing with other Jews about Torah; they would eventually become the synagogue/meeting place Jews that we know today. The temple authorities, and those in Jewish society who collaborated with the Romans were more problematic, and more responsible, IMHO, in bringing about his crucifixion.

The reason a Jew cannot become a Christian and remain a Jew is because the Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, not divine.

I already knew that...and about different schools of rabbinic thought, such as Hillel and Shammai. Early Christians were Jews who believed Jesus was divine, though. They were Christian Jews. They studied Torah, if anything, if they were literate - but Jesus changed how they viewed "the law". The New Testament was not around yet. It was the establishment - at least a group therein, who felt Jesus was a threat to their legalistic control - in my understanding. What I am getting at is that if a Jewish sect believes that Jesus is Messiah, and I do believe they can just like religious sects anywhere can branch off, like with Christendom - but also that they must follow the letter of the law in determining who's in and who's out, what difference would Jesus' death and resurrection, actually make for them? How can you be under Grace, and the letter of the law at the same time? So, did Jesus death fulfill the law by keeping it strict and letigious, or did it fulfill the law by recognizing that the spirit of the law is about keeping right relationships towards others - and extending undeserved Grace?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Where I think we stray into the potential for feelings of superiority, or a subtle anti-Semitism, is when we "diss" their Law. The Law is the Jewish covenant between Jews and the One God, and if the One God breaks covenants, well, why do Christians think their distinct covenant will be unbroken? We have a different law, a simpler distillation - love God, love neighbour as self. We are not Jews. Paul expanded Jesus' message of reformation to include righteous Gentiles, and then the temple was destroyed, the final Jewish diaspora happened, and history took a course. Not one probably intended by Jesus, I think.

 

[blackbelt1961]

BetteTheRed said

The reason a Jew cannot become a Christian and remain a Jew is because the Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, not divine.

which is why Jewish believes in Christ call themselves Messianic Jews and not Christian . Like the Pharisees of old , they still like to define who's in and who's out, there definition does not change the fact that there still born and will die, a Jew.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Where I think we stray into the potential for feelings of superiority, or a subtle anti-Semitism, is when we "diss" their Law. The Law is the Jewish covenant between Jews and the One God, and if the One God breaks covenants, well, why do Christians think their distinct covenant will be unbroken? We have a different law, a simpler distillation - love God, love neighbour as self. We are not Jews. Paul expanded Jesus' message of reformation to include righteous Gentiles, and then the temple was destroyed, the final Jewish diaspora happened, and history took a course. Not one probably intended by Jesus, I think.

Not all Jews are strict legalists about Torah laws. There are the ultra-Orthodox, to the liberal, to the agnostic, to the secular who honour certain traditions. And the completely non-religious who acknowledge their heritage. Divides over the interpretation, and how literally to interpret Torah go way back...I understand, as far back or farther than Hillel and Shammai. Who were both "Pharisees", but with different focuses. Hillel was the one who is said to have told a gentile, who asked Hillel to teach him the whole Torah, while the gentile stood on one foot, "Do not do that which is hateful to you, unto your neighbour. The rest is commentary. Now go learn it." Shammai is thought to have been more strictly legalistic.

We aren't Jews - well maybe some whose ancestors are Jewish who've joined mainstream churches, would say they are by heritage but not religious affiliation - but early Christians were Jews.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

When Jesus said, love God and like unto it, love your neighbour - I don't believe he died for the sake of bringing people back into legalism - Not Jews, gentiles, or any human beings. I think he died and was resurrected (in Spirit - our bodies living in and carrying that Spirit forward through the ages) to spread a message of love to everyone. If anything, I am a universalist defending even the "unbelievers" and the legalists alike - and everyone in between or otherwise, and of every stripe, because we've probably all got it wrong in some ways. Jesus' death and resurrection wasn't about reinstating vigilant legalism with the belief in Jesus tacked on, though. When it is written that he came for the sinners not the righteous (and all are sinners), I think it meant everyone. So, I disagree with PG13s assertion that all Jews except the Messianic ones will be "cut from the tree". I don't believe any Jews or any other faiths or atheists will be permanently "cut from the tree". God is far bigger and more merciful, than that narrow human assumption. Love for one another (regardless of religion) will always be at the root of that tree and the hope is that all can one day belong on it.

 

[Luce NDs]

which is why Jewish believes in Christ call themselves Messianic Jews and not Christian . Like the Pharisees of old , they still like to define who's in and who's out, there definition does not change the fact that there still born and will die, a Jew.

Thus ins and outs of stoic-ism! There is the tree and there is Eire rheum ... space? Does space exist or is it just a creation of Greek Dark Ages ... geometrically? Only if you can connect ... too far out for the severe compact ... as impacted!

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I think that is actually a misread of Seeler's intent. Claiming that Christianity teaches X and that Christians are poor students of X is not an appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Claiming that Christianity teaches X and that those who ignore X are not Christians would be an appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ok I can accept that as possiblity.

Which doctrine specific to Christianity (for a start) do you feel fits the bill of abhorrent behaviour?

Specific to christianity, well as christianity is a derivative of all past religions. They are all much of a muchness. I doubt I would find one abhorrent behaviour specific to christianity. Slavery, Rape, child abuse, genocide, misogyny, gay rights, human rights. etc. Too many to number.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I think @GeoFee was asking for empirical evidence to support your statement in green. How exactly can you prove faith has zero basis in reality?

The complete lack of evidence for it.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Hi Pavlos,

Sorry for being unclear. Let me try one more time.

You said:

And I asked:


The question wonders if you are able to produce evidence to verify your statement, "...faith has zero basis in reality...", quoted above?

George

Already answered " the complete lack of evidence."

 

[paradox3]

The complete lack of evidence for it.

Perhaps @GeoFee is suggesting we cannot be absolutely certain one way or another.

Philosophically speaking I am probably an agnostic but I identify as a Christian/ follower of Jesus.

 

[Jaebius]

Perhaps @GeoFee is suggesting we cannot be absolutely certain one way or another.

Philosophically speaking I am probably an agnostic but I identify as a Christian/ follower of Jesus.

Since you're probably an agnostic, why don't you identify as an agnostic?

 

[revjohn]

They are all much of a muchness.

Can you tease this out a bit more. I find it too vague to understand the point you are trying to make through it.

I doubt I would find one abhorrent

behaviour specific to christianity.

I am presuming that you are attempting to be clever rather than admitting defeat.

Slavery

I am unfamiliar with any denomination having any doctrine which demands or allows that slavery is necessary to identify as Christian in general and by the denomination specifically. Historically, there have been Christian slave owners. Historically it is also true that Christians have lead the charge against slavery. William Wilberforce, for example crusaded to end the slave trade in the British Empire.

So . . . if slavery is doctrine of the Christian Church are the "real true Christians" those who keep slaves while individuals such as William Wilberforce, because of their opposition to slavery represent the "no true Christian" camp?

Rape,

Again, I am unfamiliar with any denomination having any doctrine which demands or allows rape is necessary to identify as Christian in general and by the denomination specifically. Historically, there have been Christians who committed rape. Historically it is also true that there are Christians who do not commit rape.

So . . . if rape is doctrine of the Christian Church are the "real true Christians" those who commit rape while individuals who do not commit rape represent the "no true Christian" camp?

Argument repeats for each of child abuse, genocide,

Misogyny finds expression in certain Christian denominations which take a rigid interpretation of Paul's comments in 1 Timothy 2: 12. Certain other Christian denominations do not make 1 Timothy 2: 12 a doctrinal cornerstone.

Which Christian denominations then are the "real true Christians" and which are the "not true Christians?"

Arguably when we get into misogyny (discrimination against a visible portion of humanity) we also run into persecution of gays and other humans.

While there are Christian denominations that will engage in that kind of discrimination there are also other Christian denominations that will not. Which of those are the "real true Christians" and which are the "not true Christians?"

Too many to number.

That being the case my request for one specific doctrine calling for the Church to engage in abhorrent behaviour should not have been that difficult a request for you to answer.

If I had asked you to name every single one that would, allegedly, have been quite the task.

So why tell me that it is impossible to enumerate all of those doctrines requiring Christians to engage in abhorrent behaviour when all I asked for was one example?

 

[BetteTheRed]

There's my argument, of course, that everyone is agnostic, because, as certain as you may be about your own BS, there's no proof.

 

[Mendalla]

Since you're probably an agnostic, why don't you identify as an agnostic?

Under the philosophical definition of "agnostic", one can be an agnostic and a Christian. It means one regards the existence of God, an afterlife, etc. as a matter of faith which is not provable by reason or empiricism (yes, I'm repeating myself but it is relevant to my answer), which is a position one can hold and still have such a faith. The definition of "agnostic" as someone who doesn't have definite beliefs about metaphysical matters is a modern one, though many philosophical agnostics also fit that definition (e.g. your truly).

Spoken, BTW, by a former "agnostic Christian".

 

[Luce NDs]

There's my argument, of course, that everyone is agnostic, because, as certain as you may be about your own BS, there's no proof.

Agnostic is a questionable state ... or in reverse, prone to questions ... if one was not suffering a' pathy ... a distinct form separate from sympathy and empathy ... in the larger sense of connection ... beyond mortals that are limited in curios Ide? A' pathy having certain similarities to a' gnosis! A' gatha in place? Good lord ecce ... like a phantom essence ...