Languish.org

Reading some stuff on this, it's still isn't clear to me.
So, during antiquity, pre-christianity, up to the Roman era, could a foreigner convert to Judaism and be accepted as Jewish with equal rights, priviledges&obligations or was it frowned upon?
I'm reading in some places that converts weren't accepted (like some groups/sects today) but in others, they seem to revere converts as people who found the light, just like we Christians do.

Anything on this?

Ah, also, before the destruction of the Temple and the expulsion of Jews, was there different branch of judaism with different customs&interpretation of sacred books?

Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

There certainly were splinter groups of Judaism, pre-diaspora. That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Still a few hundred Samaritans around these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

Why would anyone convert to Judaism?  It was a tribal religion, and from a not particularily successful tribe.  They didn't exactly seek out converts.

IIRC prosyletization and conversion were not at all uncommon during the Classical era.  Under Jewish law, a convert (once converted) is deemed to a full Jew in every respect, and it is big no-no to suggest otherwise (The only limitation is that you can't convert into Kohen or Levite status).  However, it is possible there were times and places where this was not strongly enforced and improper distinctions were made concerning converts.  I do believe that around the time of Jesus some converts were criticized for backsliding, or for not adhering properly to ritual practice, and these individuals would later be targeted for recruitment by the early Christians.

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

According to Christian sources the Jews were pretty active in seeking converts once Christianity really took off.  It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire starting passing laws forbiding people from converting and the church started up the persecutions in Spain.

Also there are lots of letters where Bishops are worried that the locals do not really understand the differences between Judaism and Christianity and are easily fooled and worse most of the Rabbis are better speakers and are poaching too many Germans.

And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

I think the historical evidence shows an evangelical period of Jewish history between 100 and 800 or so.  How else do we explain the sudden presence of so many Jews all around Europe anyway?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 10:53:06 AM
IIRC prosyletization and conversion were not at all uncommon during the Classical era.  Under Jewish law, a convert (once converted) is deemed to a full Jew in every respect, and it is big no-no to suggest otherwise (The only limitation is that you can't convert into Kohen or Levite status).  However, it is possible there were times and places where this was not strongly enforced and improper distinctions were made concerning converts.  I do believe that around the time of Jesus some converts were criticized for backsliding, or for not adhering properly to ritual practice, and these individuals would later be targeted for recruitment by the early Christians.

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Samaritans.  :contract:

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

The exact nature of the Samaritans are obscure, but they appear to have been the inheritors of the religious tradition associated with the former northern Kingdom of Israel, a tradition that significantly predated that of the "Jews" (Jerusalem-centered) and hence had some claim to priority.  Not surprisingly, they met with significant hostility from many Jewish leaders (if you have read the OT, you will know it contains a lot of diatribes about religious practices in the northern kingdom).

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:55:53 AM
Samaritans.  :contract:

Yeah I guess the taxonomical question is whether they are a branch of Judaism proper or whether Jews and Samaritans are separate branches of the "Israelite" tree.

Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 10:54:42 AM
And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

What was with this?
The whole era of Jewish-Arabs/Jewish tribal types (I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?) is very strange. And why did they stop?

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2009, 11:06:09 AM
What was with this?
The whole era of Jewish-Arabs/Jewish tribal types (I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?) is very strange. And why did they stop?

I am not exactly sure why they stopped.  There are not alot of primary sources about this from the Jews themselves.

However the attempts by Jews to convert others pretty much ends with the rise of Islam in the East and the consolidation of the Church in the West.  I think there was a spiritual power vacuum of sorts and the Jews filled it to some extent.  Once Islam and Christianity were secure in victory the Jews bunkered down into Dhimmitude.

Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2009, 11:06:09 AM
(I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?)

The Khazars.

Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 11:17:39 AM
The Khazars.

They were definitely the most powerful group to convert to Judaism out in that part of the world but not the only ones.

Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 10:52:30 AM
Why would anyone convert to Judaism?  It was a tribal religion, and from a not particularily successful tribe.  They didn't exactly seek out converts.

They had a good run about 3000 years ago.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 11:03:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

The exact nature of the Samaritans are obscure, but they appear to have been the inheritors of the religious tradition associated with the former northern Kingdom of Israel, a tradition that significantly predated that of the "Jews" (Jerusalem-centered) and hence had some claim to priority.  Not surprisingly, they met with significant hostility from many Jewish leaders (if you have read the OT, you will know it contains a lot of diatribes about religious practices in the northern kingdom).

Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

If one is inquiring as to whether there existed any alternative or splinter groups of "Jews", I think one cannot avoid at least mentioning the Samaritans in this context, as the distinction between "Jews" and "Israelites" on the part of a non-specialist is likely to be obscure. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Impossible, there's no such thing.  :D

Didn't know the Samaritans were Jews at the time.  Was always taught they were "neighbours", like Americans for us ;)

Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 10:54:42 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

According to Christian sources the Jews were pretty active in seeking converts once Christianity really took off.  It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire starting passing laws forbiding people from converting and the church started up the persecutions in Spain.

Also there are lots of letters where Bishops are worried that the locals do not really understand the differences between Judaism and Christianity and are easily fooled and worse most of the Rabbis are better speakers and are poaching too many Germans.

And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

I think the historical evidence shows an evangelical period of Jewish history between 100 and 800 or so.  How else do we explain the sudden presence of so many Jews all around Europe anyway?

The traditional explaination is the conversion en mass of the Khazars, for more or less political reasons. This theory (popular with anti-Zionists and Jew haters for some reason) has been lately discredited by DNA evidence ... which also rules out massive conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim

QuoteA 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[46] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[47]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent Eastern European populations in general, might be descendants of Khazars.[48]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[49]

In short ... there seems to have been small intermixing of any sort, whether by "Khazars" or by conversion of other Europeans; but the whole question is, unfortunately, fraught with controversy because of the competing imperatives of zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism.

All an absurdity from an anthropological point of view of course: what possible difference does it make if one's ancestry is real or fictive? So far, the science appears to be on the side of "not much conversion, ancestry real".

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:15:36 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Impossible, there's no such thing.  :D

Didn't know the Samaritans were Jews at the time.  Was always taught they were "neighbours", like Americans for us ;)

As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 10:53:06 AM
Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:13:14 PM
Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

I think that is the usual definition though: "Jews" = Judahites = the Jerusalem-centered cult.  If you start including other groupings that trace a lineage to the patriarchs, you sweep in others, including Muslims.  Of course the taxonomy is inherently somewhat arbitrary.  But it serves a useful purpose here I think - Judaism as we understand the term today formed out of a process of ideological definition that to a significant extent involved a conscious differentiation as against the religious tradition that gave rise to the Samaritans.  I guess one could say the Samaritans are a kind of Jew in the same sense that Jews are a kind of Christian.

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:21:22 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 10:53:06 AM
Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.   

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:19:17 PM
As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

He'll always be Keynes to me.
:D

I'm more interested in the religious&cultural differences than the genetic pool :)

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

It's hard to know for certain because the source material is limited and there is good reason to believe that it is biased.  Probably the *best* written historical source on the period was Josephus, who also happened to be an admitted master con man and confabulator.

The Pharisees were "teachers of the law" and traditionally are viewed as the ancestors of the rabbis and rabbinic Judaism (ie the dominant brand of Judaism today).  The Saducees were traditionally thought to be a clique of priests and aristocratic types interested in defending their ancient prerogatives as against the upstart lay Pharisees.  The Essenes are somewhat obscure, but the usual account is that they are some kind of mystically-oriented movement, possibly with gnostic tendencies (but maybe not).  Zealots were political radicals who wanted to overthrow Roman rule.  Samaritans have already been discussed.

Christian tradition is hostile to the Pharisees and the term has entered the lexicon as synonym for close-minded and rigid application of law - but the reality is quite different - the Pharisees tried to use basic hermeneutical techniques to moderate the strict application of the law, and clashed with the more conservative priesthood.  There is reason to believe that Jesus (or at least the Jesus protrayed in the Gospels) either was a pharisee himself or had some training from a pharasaic teacher - Jesus is depicted as a "teacher of the law" who uses parable and dialogue to interpret its true meaning, and clashes openly with the priesthood.

And I see Malthus has covered much the same ground . . .

OT, but interesting article about the history of circumcision here:

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:34:35 PM
This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.  

thanks :)

Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 01:25:16 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:13:14 PM
Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

I think that is the usual definition though: "Jews" = Judahites = the Jerusalem-centered cult.  If you start including other groupings that trace a lineage to the patriarchs, you sweep in others, including Muslims.  Of course the taxonomy is inherently somewhat arbitrary.  But it serves a useful purpose here I think - Judaism as we understand the term today formed out of a process of ideological definition that to a significant extent involved a conscious differentiation as against the religious tradition that gave rise to the Samaritans.  I guess one could say the Samaritans are a kind of Jew in the same sense that Jews are a kind of Christian.

I disagree that the difference involved is as significant. It is like saying that Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians share enough in common to all be "Christians" objectively speaking, in spite of the fact that at times they have hated each other with a passion and considered each other total opposites - but Muslims do not. 

It all depends on what question you are answering. To my mind if someone is asking a question like in the OP, providing a 'definitional' answer is unsatisfying, particularly when you know that as a matter of fact splinter groups did exist; the OP is unlikely to know enough to ask about "Israelites" rather than "Jews".

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:35:26 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:19:17 PM
As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

He'll always be Keynes to me.
:D

I'm more interested in the religious&cultural differences than the genetic pool :)

I mean religious ancestry, not genetic.

The issue is that the "Jerusalem" Israelites were the ones who were expelled by the Babylonian captivity, and returned to rebuild the Temple. The "Samaritans" never left and refused to join the Temple-based cult.

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:34:35 PM
This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.   

thanks :)

Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

As far as I know, more Orthodox vs. Catholic (only more so, the Temple being rather more significant than the Pope).

Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2009, 01:39:48 PM
Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

It's complicated.

To a certain degree it depends how much at face value you take the historical books of the OT.  The OT suggests that the religious tradition associated with the House of David was from the beginning of the Isreaelite state THE proper and correct religion, and that subsequently the northern kingdom fell into heresy and idolotry.

More likely, the reality is that the the northern tribes were dominant politically, religiously and culturally.  It's clear that the major traditional Israelite religious shrines - Schechem and Shiloh - were in the north, in Ephraimite contry.  The Ephraimites were probably the dominant tribe and  probably formed the backbone of the early Israelite political entity (they had the prestige of association with the Joseph culture hero).  Jerusalem was a strategically important settlement because of its geographic position, but traditionally had no cultic significance - it was formerly a Jebusite city (ie non-Israelite tribe).  After the two kingdoms split (assuming there ever was a united kingdom to begin with), the northern kingdom is definitely the more significant entity.  Its kings are mentioned in Egyptian and Assyrian diplomatic correspondence - this is in sharp contrast to David and Solomon about whom there is no contemporaneous historical record.  It is for a time a significant regional power whereas the Jerusalem based kingdom is basically a rump statelet. 

My own view is that northern kings that get criticized in the OT were probably not wicked reprobates defying their God, but rather they were just following their own Ephraimate-based religious tradition, which was of relatively ancient vintage.  That tradition probably had a somewhat different iconography and ritual practice, may have had differing attitudes towards tolerance or integration of other Canaanite or Amorite religious traditions, and definitely had a different view about sites of cultic significance.  In particular, it did not attach any religious importance to Jerusalem.  Obviously the priests in the little Kingdom of Judah thought differently, but their views were not of so great significance until the northern Kingdom was annihiliated in a catastrophic war with the Assyrians.

the punchline here is that the religious practice of the Judah-ites probably starts as an innovation as against an older, more established northerm religious tradition.  The collapse of the northern kingdom accelerates that process of differentiation, as not surprisingly the Judah-ite priests conclude the God has punished the north for its evil ways.  That process as it continues and is shaped in new directions by Judah's own fall and exile, results in a new religion of Judah-ism, as distinct from what had come before.  In this sense, the Jews are the "christians" to the "jews" of the old Ephraimite-dominate Israelite confederation.  With the Samaritans as the conscious (if not genetic) inheritors of the Ephraimite religious tradition.

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:16:56 PM
In short ... there seems to have been small intermixing of any sort, whether by "Khazars" or by conversion of other Europeans; but the whole question is, unfortunately, fraught with controversy because of the competing imperatives of zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism.

All an absurdity from an anthropological point of view of course: what possible difference does it make if one's ancestry is real or fictive? So far, the science appears to be on the side of "not much conversion, ancestry real".

Well pity that discussion has to be all about Zionism and Israel.

I find it odd that the Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi are all shown to genetically identical they all sorta look different to me.  Pity it has to be some sort of attack on Judaism that they might have converted and intermarried with locals.  I mean poor Jews: damned if they do intermarry and damned  if they don't.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 01:36:56 PM
Christian tradition is hostile to the Pharisees and the term has entered the lexicon as synonym for close-minded and rigid application of law - but the reality is quite different - the Pharisees tried to use basic hermeneutical techniques to moderate the strict application of the law, and clashed with the more conservative priesthood.  There is reason to believe that Jesus (or at least the Jesus protrayed in the Gospels) either was a pharisee himself or had some training from a pharasaic teacher - Jesus is depicted as a "teacher of the law" who uses parable and dialogue to interpret its true meaning, and clashes openly with the priesthood.

Yeah that anti-pharisee stuff really makes me uncomfortable.

Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 02:14:11 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 01:16:56 PM
In short ... there seems to have been small intermixing of any sort, whether by "Khazars" or by conversion of other Europeans; but the whole question is, unfortunately, fraught with controversy because of the competing imperatives of zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism.

All an absurdity from an anthropological point of view of course: what possible difference does it make if one's ancestry is real or fictive? So far, the science appears to be on the side of "not much conversion, ancestry real".

Well pity that discussion has to be all about Zionism and Israel.

I find it odd that the Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi are all shown to genetically identical they all sorta look different to me.  Pity it has to be some sort of attack on Judaism that they might have converted and intermarried with locals.  I mean poor Jews: damned if they do intermarry and damned  if they don't.

Myself, I always liked the "Khazar" explaination, because it is so damn weird.  :D It is simply unfortunate that it is popular among Jew-hating cranks.

I personally think there is much too it, as the hefty populations of Jews in places like Ukraine otherwise simply defy explaination. But that isn't "proof", merely supposition on my part. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
I personally think there is much too it, as the hefty populations of Jews in places like Ukraine otherwise simply defy explaination. But that isn't "proof", merely supposition on my part. 

The explanation for that is rather straightforward.  The Jews were massively expelled from Spain, France, and England and all moved East, eventually to Poland and Polish controlled territories because of their religious toleration.  Then the Russians moved in and conquered those territories.

Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 02:25:12 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
I personally think there is much too it, as the hefty populations of Jews in places like Ukraine otherwise simply defy explaination. But that isn't "proof", merely supposition on my part. 

The explanation for that is rather straightforward.  The Jews were massively expelled from Spain, France, and England and all moved East, eventually to Poland and Polish controlled territories because of their religious toleration.  Then the Russians moved in and conquered those territories.

There never were very many Jews in places like England. There were lots in Spain, most of whom very naturally went to North Africa, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Some small numbers of these may have made it as far away as Poland, either directly or as a result of further expulsions, but it is difficult to imaging how a relatively tiny population of immigrants became something like one-third of the population of Ukraine, and it is an awfully suspicious coincidence that, prior to the modern era, the kingdom that owned the present territory on which the Ukraine stands converted en mass to Judaism.

One has to believe that somehow all of those Jews died out or were converted, whereupon a tiny group of immigrants from Iberia arrived and wholly repopulated the place with Jews.

 :huh:

Wait, there is some controversy over the existence/identity of the Khazars?  If so I had no idea the Judaism of the Khazars was anything other than accepted fact.

Very interesting thread. :)

Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 02:41:28 PM
:huh:

Wait, there is some controversy over the existence/identity of the Khazars?  If so I had no idea the Judaism of the Khazars was anything other than accepted fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Debate

Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 02:41:28 PM
:huh:

Wait, there is some controversy over the existence/identity of the Khazars?  If so I had no idea the Judaism of the Khazars was anything other than accepted fact.

There is no dispute that the Khazars existed or that they converted. What is disputed is whether Ashkenazic Jews are descended from them.

Why is this a big deal? Mainly because it has been seized on by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. Anti-Zionists say that this means that the Jews have no "historic right" to Israel, as the Jews are not the same as the Jews of Israel, being descended from Khazars (I guess conveniently ignoring shephardim); anti-semites have their own wierd take on this.

The result is that many Jews loathe the whole subject. 

Even if Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago who gives a fuck? You can't go on a 2,000 year toilet break and expect your seat to still be there for you.

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:13:56 PM
There is no dispute that the Khazars existed or that they converted. What is disputed is whether Ashkenazic Jews are descended from them.

Why is this a big deal? Mainly because it has been seized on by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. Anti-Zionists say that this means that the Jews have no "historic right" to Israel, as the Jews are not the same as the Jews of Israel, being descended from Khazars (I guess conveniently ignoring shephardim); anti-semites have their own wierd take on this.

The result is that many Jews loathe the whole subject.

Oh, gotcha.  To me the matter is irrelevant.  Jews have no right to the land of Israel IMO anyways, aside from the right that might makes.  :menace:

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Even if Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago who gives a fuck? You can't go on a 2,000 year toilet break and expect your seat to still be there for you.

Most Zionists are not of the opinion that the 2000 year old connection "justifies" Israel (or indeed that Israel requires justification) in any event. The subject is a red herring. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:24:43 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Even if Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago who gives a fuck? You can't go on a 2,000 year toilet break and expect your seat to still be there for you.

Most Zionists are not of the opinion that the 2000 year old connection "justifies" Israel (or indeed that Israel requires justification) in any event. The subject is a red herring.

Exactly.

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:28:21 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:24:43 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Even if Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago who gives a fuck? You can't go on a 2,000 year toilet break and expect your seat to still be there for you.

Most Zionists are not of the opinion that the 2000 year old connection "justifies" Israel (or indeed that Israel requires justification) in any event. The subject is a red herring.

Exactly.

Nonetheless, to be lectured at by some Jew hater or anti-Zionist that one is not a real Jew because one is descended from Khazars is annoying, even if no Jew actually cares about being descended from Khazars (except for Levites and Kohens, of course).

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
I personally think there is much too it, as the hefty populations of Jews in places like Ukraine otherwise simply defy explaination. But that isn't "proof", merely supposition on my part.

I don't think the chronology works - there are still only a handful of Jews in Poland-Lithuiana as late as the 15th century, long after the fall of the Khazar kingdom.  The Jewish population doesnt really start to take off until the 1500s.  I think what is happening is migration from the widely dispersed but still substantial late medieval German Jewish population, fleeing wars and Lutheran persecution.

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:41:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:28:21 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:24:43 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Even if Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago who gives a fuck? You can't go on a 2,000 year toilet break and expect your seat to still be there for you.

Most Zionists are not of the opinion that the 2000 year old connection "justifies" Israel (or indeed that Israel requires justification) in any event. The subject is a red herring.

Exactly.

Nonetheless, to be lectured at by some Jew hater or anti-Zionist that one is not a real Jew because one is descended from Khazars is annoying, even if no Jew actually cares about being descended from Khazars (except for Levites and Kohens, of course).

Indeed. One would hope that they would stick to the issues, like baby eating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees

QuoteHowever, as the Maccabees realized how successful they had been, many wanted to continue the revolt and conquer other lands with Jewish populations or to convert their peoples. This policy exacerbated the divide between the Pharisees and Sadducees under later Hasmonean monarchs such as Alexander Jannaeus.[3] Those who sought the continuation of the war were led by Judah Maccabee.

The Maccabees were involved in conversions to Judaism. The most famous convert to judaism in ancient times were the ancestors of Herod the Great. His family had only been jewish for a few generations.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 02:14:11 PM

the punchline here is that the religious practice of the Judah-ites probably starts as an innovation as against an older, more established northerm religious tradition.  The collapse of the northern kingdom accelerates that process of differentiation, as not surprisingly the Judah-ite priests conclude the God has punished the north for its evil ways.  That process as it continues and is shaped in new directions by Judah's own fall and exile, results in a new religion of Judah-ism, as distinct from what had come before.  In this sense, the Jews are the "christians" to the "jews" of the old Ephraimite-dominate Israelite confederation.  With the Samaritans as the conscious (if not genetic) inheritors of the Ephraimite religious tradition.

very interesting, thanks :)

Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2009, 06:25:14 PM
The most famous convert to judaism in ancient times were the ancestors of Herod the Great. His family had only been jewish for a few generations.

You can see why an experience like that might make people be more cautious about performing more conversions . . .

Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 03:13:56 PM



There is no dispute that the Khazars existed or that they converted. What is disputed is whether Ashkenazic Jews are descended from them.

A lot of the earliest Seljuk rulers have biblical names, meaning they were probably either Jewish due to Khazar influence or Nestorian Christian.  Just don't tell a Turkish Nationalist that the core of the Seljuk dynasty was a bunch of Jews/Christians.   :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2009, 01:25:16 PM


I think that is the usual definition though: "Jews" = Judahites = the Jerusalem-centered cult.  If you start including other groupings that trace a lineage to the patriarchs, you sweep in others, including Muslims.  Of course the taxonomy is inherently somewhat arbitrary.  But it serves a useful purpose here I think - Judaism as we understand the term today formed out of a process of ideological definition that to a significant extent involved a conscious differentiation as against the religious tradition that gave rise to the Samaritans.  I guess one could say the Samaritans are a kind of Jew in the same sense that Jews are a kind of Christian.

How strictly monotheistic are the Samaritans?  That should give some kind of clue as to when/how they broke off, though it is probably just as likely that they became Monotheistic due to Jewish influence.

In The Evolution of God, which I'm reading now (on my new Kindle, wooo!), Robert Wright argues that the loss of Northern Israel and the subsequent Babylonian captivity helped "Yahwehism" go from a form a monolatrist    , perhaps pantheistic faith somewhat similar to the various Hindu denominations (or, more appropriately, Zoroastrianism) that view the various "Gods" as angles or emanations of a more important diety.  Really interesting argument.


BTW, I'm increasingly convinced that Judaism, mainline Christianity and mainline Islam all have way more in common with eacother than not, and could reasonably be called a single religion whose differences, largely for non-theological reasons, have been exaggerated.  Jews and mainline Muslims are better Christians than Mormons are, as Mormons really have more in common with pre-Monotheist Levantine faiths, like the religion of the Phoenicians. 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 18, 2009, 05:48:43 PM
BTW, I'm increasingly convinced that Judaism, mainline Christianity and mainline Islam all have way more in common with eacother than not, and could reasonably be called a single religion whose differences, largely for non-theological reasons, have been exaggerated.  Jews and mainline Muslims are better Christians than Mormons are, as Mormons really have more in common with pre-Monotheist Levantine faiths, like the religion of the Phoenicians.

:huh:

er, that might work save for the fact that there are irreconcilable and directly contradictory differences between the three Abrahamic religions (e.g. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, whereas the other two believe he is not the son of God).

Also, I know you have an irrational hatred for the LDS Church so I'm not sure why I'm even trying, but who are you to judge that Mormons are 'bad' Christians?  Mormons of course think that they are the best Christians (and the only Christians who are actually correct in their practices).  :D

Both Spellus and Marti hate Mormons. Therefore, they sound fun.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 06:43:11 PM
Both Spellus and Marti hate Mormons. Therefore, they sound fun.

They're really not bad people.  What they believe IS silly, but I don't think it's any sillier than mainstream Christianity.  I also like the fact that it has a gnostic component and the whole apotheosis bit.... it's got a tinge of the left-hand path which any worthwhile religion ought to have.

Anyway, I've never met a Mormon that was mean or a jerk or anything, or even seemed particularly stupid compared to any other hardcore religious type.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:45:18 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 06:43:11 PM
Both Spellus and Marti hate Mormons. Therefore, they sound fun.

They're really not bad people.  What they believe IS silly, but I don't think it's any sillier than mainstream Christianity.  I also like the fact that it has a gnostic component and the whole apotheosis bit.... it's got a tinge of the left-hand path which any worthwhile religion ought to have.

Anyway, I've never met a Mormon that was mean or a jerk or anything, or even seemed particularly stupid compared to any other hardcore religious type.

I miss them coming to my door trying to give me the good news.  :(

They're amusing to toy with.  I've had several conversations with young men who were doing their missionary service.  Once I told them I was a Jew so they wouldn't bug me... which didn't work.  But they stopped trying to proselytize and proceeded to quiz me about Judaism, since they admitted to knowing nothing about it.  So we had a 30 minute conversation in which I educated them about The Tribe.  They actually told me they found Jews "really neat" and didn't cast aspersions on them.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:45:18 PM
They're really not bad people.  What they believe IS silly, but I don't think it's any sillier than mainstream Christianity.  I also like the fact that it has a gnostic component and the whole apotheosis bit.... it's got a tinge of the left-hand path which any worthwhile religion ought to have.

Anyway, I've never met a Mormon that was mean or a jerk or anything, or even seemed particularly stupid compared to any other hardcore religious type.

I have rather contempt for them for their original extremely racist views...and their continuing militantly homophobic views.  Also the way their church is structured and so forth.

They are nice people but I have yet to meet a religion with mean people so I am not sure why that is such a big deal.  Well ok the Baptists are rather insufferable.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:49:19 PM
They're amusing to toy with.  I've had several conversations with young men who were doing their missionary service.  Once I told them I was a Jew so they wouldn't bug me... which didn't work.  But they stopped trying to proselytize and proceeded to quiz me about Judaism, since they admitted to knowing nothing about it.  So we had a 30 minute conversation in which I educated them about The Tribe.  They actually told me they found Jews "really neat" and didn't cast aspersions on them.

Yeah I have had conversations with them as well.  As you say they are nice even if the literature and crap they gave me was....a tad disturbing.

But I mean it is not like they are Jehova's witnesses or anything.

Is it just me who finds it funny that Jerusalem used to be Jebus?
(i.e. a common odd pronounciation of Jesus)

QuoteThey're really not bad people.  What they believe IS silly, but I don't think it's any sillier than mainstream Christianity.

How come?
With Christianity they at least have the excuse that it has its origins in the deep dark unknown past and one they get beyond genesis and all that sillyness a lot of what they say does square with real history (with silly religious exagerations).
The Mormons though have some guy in the modern age doing things and spouting his crap including crazy stuff that definatly in no way can be true.

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 06:52:34 PMBut I mean it is not like they are Jehova's witnesses or anything.

Jehovah's Witnesses are always old white ladies or negroes in my experience.  :huh:

Mormon missionaries always come in teams of two young clean-cut men that look Aryan.  They always seem kinda gay too.  :cool:

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 06:51:37 PM
I have rather contempt for them for their original extremely racist views...and their continuing militantly homophobic views.  Also the way their church is structured and so forth.

They are nice people but I have yet to meet a religion with mean people so I am not sure why that is such a big deal.  Well ok the Baptists are rather insufferable.

Oh come on, every Christian sect hates teh gays, other than the Episcopalians.  As for the racism, my mother-in-law's church used to have a token negro but they asked him to leave because his constant shouts of "AAAAAAAAAAMEN" and "PRAISE JEEEEEESUS" got out of control.  So the Baptists are just as bad, but you seemed to concede that anyway.

I suddenly feel like testifyin'.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:58:14 PM
Oh come on, every Christian sect hates teh gays, other than the Episcopalians. 

Catholics don't.  They don't even notice most other sects.  They only acknowledge the Lutherans, Orthos and Anglicans as being anything even approaching a 'church'.  The rest are gnats.

The CofE is also significantly lacking in hate.  'We think you're a heretic doomed to eternal damnation and pain....but, come on, that's no reason not to come to our cake sale!'

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
:huh:

er, that might work save for the fact that there are irreconcilable and directly contradictory differences between the three Abrahamic religions (e.g. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, whereas the other two believe he is not the son of God).

Also, I know you have an irrational hatred for the LDS Church so I'm not sure why I'm even trying, but who are you to judge that Mormons are 'bad' Christians?  Mormons of course think that they are the best Christians (and the only Christians who are actually correct in their practices).  :D

Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
One God, who created everything, and loves either a people or people in general, and revealed himself to several prophets, all shared (except Muhammed and Jesus) in all religions.  Good works and deeds, respect for family, all necessary and moral, all to get an okay place in the next place.  There was or will be a messiah and an end date to history, at which point all peoples shall acknowledge that x faith was right all along.

Judaism and Islam: circumcision, virtually identical dietary restrictions, iconoclasm, existence of a sacred language and land (in Islam's case more the Hijaz than Palestine/Israel).  Very similar organizational structure, similar intellectual tradition.  Shared West Semitic traditions. 

Christianity and Islam: Evangelical faith, huge focus on resurrection and day when Jesus returns (in Islam as well) , some of the earliest Suras take a lot of stuff directly from the New Testament, similar Zoroastrian-influenced dualism and belief in anti-God (Satan, in Arabic Shaitan).

Christianity and Judaism: The Old Testament in its entirety.

Nation of Islam and Mormonism: There are multiple Gods, including female Gods, all of whom are made of flesh.  People who behave well can become Gods.  Both vastly divergent scriptures and focus, largescale ignorance of traditional practice.  Focus on self as opposed to Jewish, Christian and Muslim focus on community (look at the more basic Mormon prayers, they are all focused on personal empowerment)

Mormonism:  Resurrection of Canaanite bull imagery, sun imagery, belief that certain authority figures have direct line with God and talk to him daily.  Virulent anti-Trinitarianism. 


I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are considered different largely because they attached to different cultures/empires and often focus on the minute differences rather than the vast similarities, but doctrinally they have way more in common than the big Hindu groups.  Especially if we go back to the starts of all three, it would have been obvious that they are all "heresies" of a single faith rather than totally new ones. 

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 06:52:34 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:49:19 PM
They're amusing to toy with.  I've had several conversations with young men who were doing their missionary service.  Once I told them I was a Jew so they wouldn't bug me... which didn't work.  But they stopped trying to proselytize and proceeded to quiz me about Judaism, since they admitted to knowing nothing about it.  So we had a 30 minute conversation in which I educated them about The Tribe.  They actually told me they found Jews "really neat" and didn't cast aspersions on them.

Yeah I have had conversations with them as well.  As you say they are nice even if the literature and crap they gave me was....a tad disturbing.

But I mean it is not like they are Jehova's witnesses or anything.

Wait, there is a diference between the two?
I thought it was a diferent name for the same sect...

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 07:02:33 PM
I suddenly feel like testifyin'.

I suddenly feel like hunting down trolls.

Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2009, 08:14:55 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 07:02:33 PM
I suddenly feel like testifyin'.

I suddenly feel like hunting down trolls.

Your religion is a fraud.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
Also, I know you have an irrational hatred for the LDS Church so I'm not sure why I'm even trying, but who are you to judge that Mormons are 'bad' Christians?  Mormons of course think that they are the best Christians (and the only Christians who are actually correct in their practices).  :D

Mormons aren't 'bad' Christians since they aren't Christians at all. :)

Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2009, 08:18:47 PM

Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2009, 08:14:55 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 07:02:33 PM
I suddenly feel like testifyin'.

I suddenly feel like hunting down trolls.

Your religion is a fraud.

You are a fraud!

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2009, 05:08:39 PM

Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2009, 06:25:14 PM
The most famous convert to judaism in ancient times were the ancestors of Herod the Great. His family had only been jewish for a few generations.

You can see why an experience like that might make people be more cautious about performing more conversions . . .

Herod got a bad rap from the lunatic fringe of Jewish society. The alternative to Herod was becoming a Roman Province 100 years earlier.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:58:14 PM
So the Baptists are just as bad, but you seemed to concede that anyway.

The other mainstream protestant sects at least have a respectable appearance.  The Baptists though openly flaunt their douchebaggery for all to see.

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:59:10 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:58:14 PM
So the Baptists are just as bad, but you seemed to concede that anyway.

The other mainstream protestant sects at least have a respectable appearance.  The Baptists though openly flaunt their douchebaggery for all to see.

All protestants religions are weird. they're basically the crazy cast offs of other protestant sects just like the forebears before them :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 07:44:42 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:58:14 PM
Oh come on, every Christian sect hates teh gays, other than the Episcopalians. 

Catholics don't.  They don't even notice most other sects.  They only acknowledge the Lutherans, Orthos and Anglicans as being anything even approaching a 'church'.  The rest are gnats.

The CofE is also significantly lacking in hate.  'We think you're a heretic doomed to eternal damnation and pain....but, come on, that's no reason not to come to our cake sale!'

I have never seen gone to Mass and seen a Catholic priest rant about gays.  In fact there's not a great deal of fire and brimstone at all.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 18, 2009, 08:30:15 PMMormons aren't 'bad' Christians since they aren't Christians at all. :)

Kinda like what I said to Spellus, what authority do you have to decide that?  Mormons of course believe themselves to be Christian, and since it's ALL nonsense to me, I'm not bothered by what they claim vs. the significant differences between them and the other self-proclaimed Christian religions.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:39:35 AMI have never seen gone to Mass and seen a Catholic priest rant about gays.  In fact there's not a great deal of fire and brimstone at all.

No, but the Catholic church still isn't tolerant of homosexuality.  Just because they don't fume about it Reverend Phelps-style doesn't mean they accept it.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 05:28:14 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:39:35 AMI have never seen gone to Mass and seen a Catholic priest rant about gays.  In fact there's not a great deal of fire and brimstone at all.

No, but the Catholic church still isn't tolerant of homosexuality.  Just because they don't fume about it Reverend Phelps-style doesn't mean they accept it.

No, but Caliga  still isn't tolerant of homosexuality.  Just because he doesn't fume about it Reverend Phelps-style doesn't mean he accepts it.

 :huh: You're an idiot.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 18, 2009, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
Also, I know you have an irrational hatred for the LDS Church so I'm not sure why I'm even trying, but who are you to judge that Mormons are 'bad' Christians?  Mormons of course think that they are the best Christians (and the only Christians who are actually correct in their practices).  :D

Mormons aren't 'bad' Christians since they aren't Christians at all. :)

I tend to agree, they believe Jesus is a space alien. And that instead of heaven we can live on as superbeings with god in outer space with all our sealed wives. Yes, they claim to be Christians.. but no Christians seem to be willing to return the favour.

 :huh:

You guys are acting like there is some legal definition of "Christian".  Unless you are some flavor of believing Christian yourself, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to denigrate the Mormons.  Their theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity, yes, but I'm not sure why that makes them "not Christian".  They still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God.

Catholics aren't real christians either. They believe in the state church.:yes:

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 08:18:10 AM
:huh:

You guys are acting like there is some legal definition of "Christian".  Unless you are some flavor of believing Christian yourself, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to denigrate the Mormons.  Their theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity, yes, but I'm not sure why that makes them "not Christian".  They still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God.

I'm qualified to define who is and who is not a Christian.  Mormons, for all their wackiness, are still inside of the Christian family.

Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 06:45:18 PM
Anyway, I've never met a Mormon that was mean or a jerk or anything

Now, ex Mormons...

Quote from: Queequeg on August 18, 2009, 05:48:43 PM
How strictly monotheistic are the Samaritans?  That should give some kind of clue as to when/how they broke off, though it is probably just as likely that they became Monotheistic due to Jewish influence.

In The Evolution of God, which I'm reading now (on my new Kindle, wooo!), Robert Wright argues that the loss of Northern Israel and the subsequent Babylonian captivity helped "Yahwehism" go from a form a monolatrist    , perhaps pantheistic faith somewhat similar to the various Hindu denominations (or, more appropriately, Zoroastrianism) that view the various "Gods" as angles or emanations of a more important diety.  Really interesting argument.

Not quite sure what is being driven at in the last para, but what is almost certainly true was that the pre-Babylonian exile Israelites were not monotheist.  The Torah, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and the historical books are not monotheist.  God is one of many gods - more important and more powerful perhaps, but not the only.  God does not define himself in the OT as the one and only God.  Rather, he is the God of Abraham, the God of the Covenant.  The existence and even power of other gods is acknowledged even as they are denigrated,  A likelihood is that exposure to Zoroastrianism led post-exilic Judaism to form in a monotheistic direction.

QuoteBTW, I'm increasingly convinced that Judaism, mainline Christianity and mainline Islam all have way more in common with eacother than not, and could reasonably be called a single religion whose differences, largely for non-theological reasons, have been exaggerated.  Jews and mainline Muslims are better Christians than Mormons are, as Mormons really have more in common with pre-Monotheist Levantine faiths, like the religion of the Phoenicians.

Christianity and what we now know Judaism arise out of the same event - the destruction of the Second Temple.  That forced Judaism - which already was moving in that direction under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy --  to develop as a religion based on words and ideas, not stones and dirt.  At the same time, it both encouraged the Judeo-Christians to develop in a similar direction (i.e. the messianic promise of Jesus became more about renovation of the soul rather than justice in this world), while politically it prompted them to sever the ties with their Jewish roots.

Islam obviously borrows very heavily from both religions - the notion of the "seal of the prophets" presumes that the faith is not an innovation but merely a extension of the pre-existing ones (albeit a perfected one).

re Mormons -

My own take is that the very beginning (paul) Christianity made a Faustian pact - they decided to consciously work within and adapt pre-existing folk traditions, in order to speed expansion.  Originally the idea was to clean up afterwards, but inevitably it became almost impossible to diffferentiate between the true core and all the embellishments and carry-overs.  So Christianity becomes an uneasy alloy of a now-lost core tradition mixed together with a grab-bag of regional and local folk beliefs and practices.  Something like Mormonism becomes possible with this kind of religious structure mixes with the heady, febrile environment of 19th century America.

Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples). Nowhere is there any hint that other gods don't exist, merely that "thou shalt have no other before me". It is pretty clear that Jewish-style monotheism, in which there is only one god and it lacks much in the way of human attributes, was a relatively late development.

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples).

:blink:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2009, 11:02:02 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples).

:blink:

Genisis 6 versus 1-4:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,
the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.
Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

"Sons of Heaven" is more literally translated as "Sons of God."

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 10:49:49 AM
My own take is that the very beginning (paul) Christianity made a Faustian pact - they decided to consciously work within and adapt pre-existing folk traditions, in order to speed expansion.

Yes.  I can't say for sure this was occurring as early as you put it, but if you read History of the English People by Bede it clearly describes missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons going out of their way to equate pagan customs/beliefs with Christian ones--hence why Easter is celebrated with the egg motif and Christmas with the evergreen tree one.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2009, 11:02:02 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples).

:blink:

Sav nailed it. Most versions expressly state "sons of god".

New Standard Version, Genesis 6:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=47

Quote1When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said,(A) "My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever,(B) for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

King James Version:

Quote1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

QuoteSomething like Mormonism becomes possible with this kind of religious structure mixes with the heady, febrile environment of 19th century America.

I disagree. Mormonism specifically draws upon the pre-Monotheistic heritage of the Abrahamic faiths, including bull imagery, polytheism and the notion of a mother diety.  It is more a 19th century style pseudo-intellectual bullshit mystical religion like the most esoteric parts of Masonism (that it drew very, very heavily upon).  It didn't develop a synthesis with the native religious traditions (which were and are far superior to Mormonism) so much as some BS ideas about early Judaism and misconceptions about Native Americans.

QuoteHell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural

IIRC this is pretty hotly debated as the plural in ancient Hebrew is sometimes confusing.

QuoteSo Christianity becomes an uneasy alloy of a now-lost core tradition mixed together with a grab-bag of regional and local folk beliefs and practices.

IDK about this.  All religions do this to a lesser or greater extent; Islam has the Ka'bah, which even Muslims regard as suspect, and Judaism incorporated several Gods (including several variants of Yahweh, Elohim, various Wisdom gods incorporated as aspects, like in higher Hinduism, Zoroastiranism or Christianity). While I think Christianity does this more, this is, to me at least, a very clear strength.  We were forged in a period of massive urbanization in a global Empire, wherein people from thousands of different ethnic backgrounds interacted on a daily basis.   We picked up the greatest strengths of all the faiths we took, and changed with the local environment.  I think that legacy is the reason Christianity today is gaining far more converts than any other religion (Islam is growing mostly due to a lack of contraception) in places like China. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples). Nowhere is there any hint that other gods don't exist, merely that "thou shalt have no other before me". It is pretty clear that Jewish-style monotheism, in which there is only one god and it lacks much in the way of human attributes, was a relatively late development.

I think the typical Christian take on this passage is that the "sons of God" being referred to are angels.

Genesis is an extraordinary literary collection of ancient near eastern religious folk traditions and legends, which unfortunately makes very awkward reading as a foundational text for any fundamentalist, monotheistic religion.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 19, 2009, 11:13:36 AM
IIRC this is pretty hotly debated as the plural in ancient Hebrew is sometimes confusing.

Not being fluent in Hebrew myself, I have no independent input into this: Hebrew-speakers have told me that it is plural, and not in the sense of a "royal we".

However, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:17:04 AMHowever, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

Yes, correct, but see my earlier post.  Nephilim = half human, half angel.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:15:31 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples). Nowhere is there any hint that other gods don't exist, merely that "thou shalt have no other before me". It is pretty clear that Jewish-style monotheism, in which there is only one god and it lacks much in the way of human attributes, was a relatively late development.

I think the typical Christian take on this passage is that the "sons of God" being referred to are angels.

That doesn't really resolve the issue though; it just adds another referent. 

Ie what is the difference between a "god" who is the offspring of God, and an immortal divine being created by and in service to God (an angel)?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 11:19:35 AMThat doesn't really resolve the issue though; it just adds another referent. 

Ie what is the difference between a "god" who is the offspring of God, and an immortal divine being created by and in service to God (an angel)?

Well, I mean you might as well take it to an extreme and conclude that all men are sons of God... if the dude created all of existence than this must be figuratively true.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:18:49 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:17:04 AMHowever, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

Yes, correct, but see my earlier post.  Nephilim = half human, half angel.

The "Nephilim" are something else again - the same passage mentions both "sons of god", the offspring of those (mighty men or heros) and "nephilim" - three different categories of mythological beings.

Other parts of genesis mention what could be called "angels" specifically as such (i.e., the "cherubim" who guard Eden after the expulsion), so it is odd to use a circumlocution for "angel".

Makes more sense to imagine Christ had some really horny older bros.  :lol:

Quote from: wikiSome individuals and groups, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, St. Augustine, John Calvin, and the Latter-day Saints, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, i.e., those who were descended from Cain. Not only is this unequivocally stated in Ethiopian Orthodox versions of I Enoch and Jubilees, but this is also the view presented in a few extra-Biblical, yet ancient works, particularly the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. In these sources, these offspring of Seth were said to have disobeyed God, by breeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children "who were all unlike", thus angering God into bringing about the Deluge.

Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh". 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 19, 2009, 11:28:20 AM
Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh".

Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat.  :)

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:23:35 AM
Makes more sense to imagine Christ had some really horny older bros.  :lol:

more proof jesus is gay. His brothers come down and lay multiple hot chicks, Jesus comes down and touches no woemn and has a penchant for hanging around burly fishermen. Then he goes and dies in an extreem case of S&M gone bad. God must be so ashamed :( :P

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:25:31 AM

Quote from: wikiSome individuals and groups, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, St. Augustine, John Calvin, and the Latter-day Saints, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, i.e., those who were descended from Cain. Not only is this unequivocally stated in Ethiopian Orthodox versions of I Enoch and Jubilees, but this is also the view presented in a few extra-Biblical, yet ancient works, particularly the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. In these sources, these offspring of Seth were said to have disobeyed God, by breeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children "who were all unlike", thus angering God into bringing about the Deluge.

But this interpretation makes no sense of the text. There is no indication that the "mighty men, men of renown" were wicked, or indeed that they formed the whole population (rather the contrary, I would think). Genesis 6(2) states that God found humanity as a whole at the time wicked, with the singular exception of Noah; there is absolutely nothing in the Biblical text to indicate that God was pissed at the offspring of the sons of god. Mankind as a whole was expressly described as god's target.

Quote5(C) The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every(D) intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And(E) the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it(F) grieved him to his heart. 7So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8But Noah(G) found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

The explaination you quoted is a gloss that contradicts the text.

@ Mal
I only added the wiki quote because it was germane to the discussion and I thought it was vaguely interesting.  :huh:

OMG I just remembered something....

The mitre (the hat-thingy I couldn't remember the name of) comes from the cult of a fish god indeed.  The god's name? DAGON.

:o

:cthulu: :cthulu: :cthulu:

"IA!  IA!  Paternoster fthgn!"

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 05:27:15 AM
Kinda like what I said to Spellus, what authority do you have to decide that?  Mormons of course believe themselves to be Christian, and since it's ALL nonsense to me, I'm not bothered by what they claim vs. the significant differences between them and the other self-proclaimed Christian religions.

The Book of Mormon. 'Real' Christians haven't been adding scripture for millennia.

Plus it annoys Mormons to say so.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2009, 11:41:28 AM
The Book of Mormon. 'Real' Christians haven't been adding scripture for millennia.

So?  The Ethiopian church has added books to the Bible but I don't see anyone saying they "aren't real Christians".

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:32:14 AM
Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat.  :)

Fish hat?

It is very, very common for big hats to symbolize religious importance.  Compare these four hats:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fdynamic%2Fimgs%2F080324%2FVillains%2FWizard-Of-Oz-witch_l.jpg&hash=933bd6d2020e97dc9d1677342e4ff0870ac18578)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspaceflight.nasa.gov%2Fgallery%2Fimages%2Fstation%2Fcrew-16%2Fmed%2Fjsc2008e035419.jpg&hash=b84525fed175f64cc67db20a7fb52b12f3016d7e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fed%2FBehistun.Inscript.Skunkha.jpg&hash=46bdd01cc33f6835bf2179ecb8bf173b879cf24d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyfish.net%2Fimages%2Fcostume%2Farmenian_patriarch_100.jpg&hash=b227cb0c750bffa4f145db87fffd68eb58a56502)

The second is the national dress of Khazak women, the third an ancient description of eastern Scytho-Sarmatians, the last is an image of an early modern Armenian priest.  They all seem to come from an early Indo-European, possibly Proto-Indo-European or early Indo-Aryan religious hat that is reflected in the ceremonial attire of societies as far away as Korea, and currently still reflected in the Pope's hat, the King of Thailand's crown, etc....   Interestingly, it might have originally been a hat for women, or perhaps became one in later Indo-Aryan society and is reflected in later (and, interestingly, Turkic) costume.

Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2009, 11:36:48 AM
more proof jesus is gay. His brothers come down and lay multiple hot chicks, Jesus comes down and touches no woemn and has a penchant for hanging around burly fishermen. Then he goes and dies in an extreem case of S&M gone bad. God must be so ashamed :( :P

You are so going to have to say a billion Hail Marys.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
So?  The Ethiopian church has added books to the Bible but I don't see anyone saying they "aren't real Christians".

Nobody knows anything about them. :mellow:

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:32:14 AM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 19, 2009, 11:28:20 AM
Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh".

Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat.  :)

yes, and the staffs the bishops carry are the same as the Roman augurs carried. And apparently the the church recieved the augural books/scrolls too. The church beiing what it was they probably didn't destroy them

I like the fact that the Pope's job is a lot older than Christ. :)

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:10:43 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 10:49:49 AM
My own take is that the very beginning (paul) Christianity made a Faustian pact - they decided to consciously work within and adapt pre-existing folk traditions, in order to speed expansion.

Yes.  I can't say for sure this was occurring as early as you put it, but if you read History of the English People by Bede it clearly describes missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons going out of their way to equate pagan customs/beliefs with Christian ones--hence why Easter is celebrated with the egg motif and Christmas with the evergreen tree one.

The evergreen tree was imported from Germany by Prince Albert in the 19th century.

The Aztecs stole the pyramids from the Egyptians as well. 

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:43:18 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2009, 11:41:28 AM
The Book of Mormon. 'Real' Christians haven't been adding scripture for millennia.

So?  The Ethiopian church has added books to the Bible but I don't see anyone saying they "aren't real Christians".

Which ones?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2009, 12:04:48 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:32:14 AM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 19, 2009, 11:28:20 AM
Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh".

Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat.  :)

yes, and the staffs the bishops carry are the same as the Roman augurs carried. And apparently the the church recieved the augural books/scrolls too. The church beiing what it was they probably didn't destroy them

Or maybe they were taken from the Crook and Flail of the Pharaohs!  The possibilities of  speculation are endless!

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:37:30 AM
Genesis 6(2) states that God found humanity as a whole at the time wicked, with the singular exception of Noah;

One of my pet peeves about the Bible is informed righteousness.  Noah seems kind of like an asshole to me.  At least Moses tells God to fuck off when God says he is going to write the Israelites out of history.

Moses went out on a limb for the Israelites but Noah that selfish jerk is happy to let the whole of humanity die.  Noah sucks.

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2009, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:37:30 AM
Genesis 6(2) states that God found humanity as a whole at the time wicked, with the singular exception of Noah;

One of my pet peeves about the Bible is informed righteousness.  Noah seems kind of like an asshole to me.  At least Moses tells God to fuck off when God says he is going to write the Israelites out of history.

Moses went out on a limb for the Israelites but Noah that selfish jerk is happy to let the whole of humanity die.  Noah sucks.

Noah is the only the most righteous guy in his time.  Of course it's a time so bad that everyone deserves to be drown.  So you really shouldn't expect him to be to nice.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:22:34 PM
Noah is the only the most righteous guy in his time.  Of course it's a time so bad that everyone deserves to be drown.  So you really shouldn't expect him to be to nice.

Well you have a point there.

I have sometimes thought if maybe the lesson was that if Noah had done what Moses did maybe God would have spared the world.  That makes the story a bit more complex...and since it didn't really happen I think I like that version better.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:22:34 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2009, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2009, 11:37:30 AM
Genesis 6(2) states that God found humanity as a whole at the time wicked, with the singular exception of Noah;

One of my pet peeves about the Bible is informed righteousness.  Noah seems kind of like an asshole to me.  At least Moses tells God to fuck off when God says he is going to write the Israelites out of history.

Moses went out on a limb for the Israelites but Noah that selfish jerk is happy to let the whole of humanity die.  Noah sucks.

Noah is the only the most righteous guy in his time.  Of course it's a time so bad that everyone deserves to be drown.  So you really shouldn't expect him to be to nice.

Plus he was 600; he was probably extra cantankerous for having to yell at kids to get off his lawn for 540 years.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 11:39:21 AM
@ Mal
I only added the wiki quote because it was germane to the discussion and I thought it was vaguely interesting.  :huh:

It is interesting.  :)

I just think that this particular tradition contradicts the text.

Noah also had naked time with his son and then decreed that his son's descendants should be slaves.  They always say that a problem with incest is that it involves unequal positions of power. :(

Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2009, 01:31:34 PM
Noah also had naked time with his son and then decreed that his son's descendants should be slaves.  They always say that a problem with incest is that it involves unequal positions of power. :(

Yeah they do alot of the 'cursing/blessing entire lines of descendants' stuff in that book early on.

Heck the Jews even curse their own descendants for all enternity in the Gospel of John.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:07:55 PMWhich ones?

I can't name them off the top of my head.  :huh:  Check wikipedia or something.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 01:37:16 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 01:07:55 PMWhich ones?

I can't name them off the top of my head.  :huh:  Check wikipedia or something.

I was under the impression that the Ethiopian Bible had Jubilees and Enoch but these were compiled around the same time as the Western Bible.  So it's not really comparable to Mormons.  Mormons are to Christianity as Nation of Islam is to Islam.

Most of the Mormons I know have framed pictures of Christ in prominent positions in their homes and offices.  I'd think the whole worshipping Christ thing makes them Christians.

I just converted to Mithras worship. I'm grilling steaks tonight.

Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2009, 08:04:29 PM
Wait, there is a diference between the two?
I thought it was a diferent name for the same sect...

they're like Samaritans and Jews ;)

Quote from: PRC on August 19, 2009, 02:15:29 PM
Most of the Mormons I know have framed pictures of Christ in prominent positions in their homes and offices.  I'd think the whole worshipping Christ thing makes them Christians.

Hey Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet as well.  They aren't Christians.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 19, 2009, 11:48:29 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspaceflight.nasa.gov%2Fgallery%2Fimages%2Fstation%2Fcrew-16%2Fmed%2Fjsc2008e035419.jpg&hash=b84525fed175f64cc67db20a7fb52b12f3016d7e)

These Kazakh women are kinda HOTT.

That is my contribution to this thread.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 08:18:10 AM
:huh:

You guys are acting like there is some legal definition of "Christian".  Unless you are some flavor of believing Christian yourself, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to denigrate the Mormons.  Their theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity, yes, but I'm not sure why that makes them "not Christian".  They still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God.

Way, way back on the old board (might have been one of the first big threads there) we had a debate about what makes one a Christian.  Several of us were of the opinion that if one subscribes to the doctrines presented in the Nicene Creed (or other, similar statements of faith), that would suffice to describe your beliefs as Christian.  But no-one seemed to know if Mormons would agree with the doctines presented in the Creed.

Actually, I know the answer to that one--the Latter-Day Saints reject the Nicene Creed.  They do so for what I think are obvious reasons: the Creed mentions the resurrection but implies there will not be any earthly existence following Jesus's Second Coming and the Last Judgment.  Once of the central themes of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus has already returned to Earth once following his first death+resurrection and preached the Gospel in Mesoamerica.  That's why Mormons are always doing archaeological digs in Mexico and countries south; they're trying to find proof of that second coming among the ruins... or at least something suggesting the geography/history as laid out in the Book of Mormon is even remotely possible.

It's weird that I have no recollection of that thread, though.  :huh:

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 19, 2009, 02:18:42 PM
I just converted to Mithras worship. I'm grilling steaks tonight.

Pascal's Wager moved me to Ásatrú. Thor FTW!!


All I have to do is to die in battle!

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 09:48:01 PM
That's why Mormons are always doing archaeological digs in Mexico and countries south; they're trying to find proof of that second coming among the ruins... or at least something suggesting the geography/history as laid out in the Book of Mormon is even remotely possible.

great  <_< all the wrong reasons to archeaology. Smells like pre-WW2 german archeology and it's attempts to prove ancient-germanness of places.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 20, 2009, 12:11:05 AMgreat  <_< all the wrong reasons to archeaology. Smells like pre-WW2 german archeology and it's attempts to prove ancient-germanness of places.

OMG SECRET NAZI MORMONS!!!!111  :cool:

Quote from: PRC on August 19, 2009, 02:15:29 PM
Most of the Mormons I know have framed pictures of Christ in prominent positions in their homes and offices.  I'd think the whole worshipping Christ thing makes them Christians.

Some Hindus will have a framed picture of Jesus.  Ganesh and Hanuman too.

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 05:26:23 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 20, 2009, 12:11:05 AMgreat  <_< all the wrong reasons to archeaology. Smells like pre-WW2 german archeology and it's attempts to prove ancient-germanness of places.

OMG SECRET NAZI MORMONS!!!!111  :cool:

This sounds like something Finnish nerds might make a movie about. Or a Eurovision entry.

Obersturmbannführer Brigham Young IV and the Raiders of the Lost Guatemalan Lizard People?  :cool:

Quote from: PRC on August 19, 2009, 02:15:29 PM
Most of the Mormons I know have framed pictures of Christ in prominent positions in their homes and offices.  I'd think the whole worshipping Christ thing makes them Christians.

How do you know it's jesus in the pic?

Quote from: dps on August 19, 2009, 09:26:40 PM
  Several of us were of the opinion that if one subscribes to the doctrines presented in the Nicene Creed (or other, similar statements of faith), that would suffice to describe your beliefs as Christian.

Sufficient perhaps, but surely not necessary.  Otherwise the Arians wouldn't qualify as Christian.

Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2009, 07:29:24 AM
How do you know it's jesus in the pic?

I guess I just assumed it was.  How do you know it's Jesus on the Cross? 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2009, 09:52:47 AM

Quote from: dps on August 19, 2009, 09:26:40 PM
  Several of us were of the opinion that if one subscribes to the doctrines presented in the Nicene Creed (or other, similar statements of faith), that would suffice to describe your beliefs as Christian.

Sufficient perhaps, but surely not necessary.  Otherwise the Arians wouldn't qualify as Christian.

Damn Arians. Buncha skinheads. Can't even spell.   :D

Quote from: PRC on August 20, 2009, 10:08:17 AM
I guess I just assumed it was.  How do you know it's Jesus on the Cross? 

It could be Kirk Douglas.

Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 10:11:40 AM
It could be Kirk Douglas.

Nah, the chin didn't have a cleft you could drive a truck down.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2009, 09:52:47 AMSufficient perhaps, but surely not necessary.  Otherwise the Arians wouldn't qualify as Christian.

The irony of your statement is that Mormon theology as it relates to Christology is identical to the ancient Arian position.  Obviously there is no direct connection between the LDS Church and Arian Christianity, but I guess you could get away with calling them "Arian Christians".

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 01:00:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2009, 09:52:47 AMSufficient perhaps, but surely not necessary.  Otherwise the Arians wouldn't qualify as Christian.

The irony of your statement is that Mormon theology as it relates to Christology is identical to the ancient Arian position.  Obviously there is no direct connection between the LDS Church and Arian Christianity, but I guess you could get away with calling them "Arian Christians".

Not really.  The Arians don't believe that God physically penetrated Mary, or that Jesus visited the Americas, or that both Jesus and God were great people on another planet who were chosen to become the Gods of this world. 

  God were great people on another planet who were chosen to become the Gods of this world. 
[/quote]Wait, what? I knew the other weird stuff (israeli tribe in NA and that) but they think God"s an alien?

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 01:48:37 PMNot really.  The Arians don't believe that God physically penetrated Mary, or that Jesus visited the Americas, or that both Jesus and God were great people on another planet who were chosen to become the Gods of this world.

None of which has anything to do with Christology. :mellow:

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 02:00:40 PM

Wait, what? I knew the other weird stuff (israeli tribe in NA and that) but they think God"s an alien?

It isn't the public face, but it is there.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/17#17
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20

If that sounds a lot like Satanism, that's because Mormonism flips all of Christianity on it's head and reverts back to Baal worship.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irr.org%2Fmit%2Fimages%2Fbaptismal-font.GIF&hash=02946c8972fc1a8044017c005127ed4f999b3ef8) 

A Mormon Baptismal font. 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 02:56:51 PMMormonism flips all of Christianity on it's head and reverts back to Baal worship.

:huh:

uhm, no.  Just no.

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 01:48:37 PMNot really.  The Arians don't believe that God physically penetrated Mary, or that Jesus visited the Americas, or that both Jesus and God were great people on another planet who were chosen to become the Gods of this world.

None of which has anything to do with Christology. :mellow:

Cal, why don't you bail out now?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 03:07:15 PMCal, why don't you bail out now?

...

Perhaps because my statement is 100% accurate?  Christology is the nature/essence of Christ vs. God.  It has nothing to do with any apocryphal myths about what Jesus did in North America or any lost tribes or anything like that.

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:08:47 PM

...

Perhaps because my statement is 100% accurate?  Christology is the nature/essence of Christ vs. God.  It has nothing to do with any apocryphal myths about what Jesus did in North America or any lost tribes or anything like that.

Has everything to do with Christology.  Traditional Mormon beliefs are that Jesus
A) is the result of a physical union between God and Mary.  As in humping and cumming and whatnot. Not true of any other Christian or even Muslim sect.
B) Jesus was Jehova in the Old Testament, while God is Yahweh.  So it is non-Monotheistic from the outset.
C) That people can become like Jesus, and become Jesus-like regents of their own planets. 

Let's look at Mormonism's other greatest inverted-Christian hits:
A) God isn't the creator of the Universe, he is from Kolob, he just created our solar system
B) The most important, oldest Mormon prayers all ask for material power, and expect to be rewarded with Godhood or near-Godhood in the next life.  Compare this with the oldest Christian prayers: all redemption and "THINE is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory".   Christianity and Islam (for the most part on the last one) focus on servitude of God, Mormons focus upon their own wealth and success in the next world. 
C) Mormonism has consciously adopted the imagery of pre-Monotheistic Levantine religions, including Sun iconography and the spiritual importance of Bulls (hence the fountain).

As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.  I think the same might be true of Rastafarianism, but I'm not sure.  For some reason, America fermented some insane new faiths. 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM


As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.

Hey, I stated that!

Hmm, so if i become a Mormon i can rule my own solar system? That's better then this whole after life of light and no fun that real christians got going. How good a mormon do i have to be to become a god?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 03:34:24 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM


As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.

Hey, I stated that!

I've said it a bunch of times.   I remember thinking that when I first started reading about the NoI after seeing Malcom X for the first time. 

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 03:52:18 PM
Hmm, so if i become a Mormon i can rule my own solar system? That's better then this whole after life of light and no fun that real christians got going. How good a mormon do i have to be to become a god?

Convert now, don't ever drink coffee, alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs, go on a mission ASAP, get married right after that (and never have sex outside of marriage), get sealed in the temple (meaning you are with her and your kids for eternity), go to Church every Sunday and work pro-bono for hours of your life, give 10% of your income pre-taxes to the Church and give occasional donations, and raise all your children as good Mormons. 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:22:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 03:34:24 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM


As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.

Hey, I stated that!

I've said it a bunch of times.   I remember thinking that when I first started reading about the NoI after seeing Malcom X for the first time.

Well it's an apt comparison. 

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 03:52:18 PM
Hmm, so if i become a Mormon i can rule my own solar system? That's better then this whole after life of light and no fun that real christians got going. How good a mormon do i have to be to become a god?

Convert now, don't ever drink coffee, alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs, go on a mission ASAP, get married right after that (and never have sex outside of marriage), get sealed in the temple (meaning you are with her and your kids for eternity), go to Church every Sunday and work pro-bono for hours of your life, give 10% of your income pre-taxes to the Church and give occasional donations, and raise all your children as good Mormons. 

Is there a lazy mormons solar system? like one where i can't create intellegent life but i can still rule over nature?

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 04:30:30 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 03:52:18 PM
Hmm, so if i become a Mormon i can rule my own solar system? That's better then this whole after life of light and no fun that real christians got going. How good a mormon do i have to be to become a god?

Convert now, don't ever drink coffee, alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs, go on a mission ASAP, get married right after that (and never have sex outside of marriage), get sealed in the temple (meaning you are with her and your kids for eternity), go to Church every Sunday and work pro-bono for hours of your life, give 10% of your income pre-taxes to the Church and give occasional donations, and raise all your children as good Mormons. 

Is there a lazy mormons solar system? like one where i can't create intellegent life but i can still rule over nature?

Just go to the TElestial (a word Smith made up) and play Spore or SimEarth.

Quotealcohol, don't smoke or do drugs

yay! I'm a Mormon! Give me 10 wives now.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:36:02 PM

Quotealcohol, don't smoke or do drugs

yay! I'm a Mormon! Give me 10 wives now.

Coffee?  I think you'd probably have to give up all caffinated drinks, tea, coke, etc...

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:36:53 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 04:36:02 PM

Quotealcohol, don't smoke or do drugs

yay! I'm a Mormon! Give me 10 wives now.

Coffee?  I think you'd probably have to give up all caffinated drinks, tea, coke, etc...

Coffee sucks. Tea is for English faeries. And I'd cheat with Dr. pepper, that saucy bitch is mine.  :P

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:25:24 PM
Convert now, don't ever drink coffee, alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs, go on a mission ASAP, get married right after that (and never have sex outside of marriage), get sealed in the temple (meaning you are with her and your kids for eternity), go to Church every Sunday and work pro-bono for hours of your life, give 10% of your income pre-taxes to the Church and give occasional donations, and raise all your children as good Mormons.

Are the Mystical Briefs optional?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:41:57 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 04:25:24 PM
Convert now, don't ever drink coffee, alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs, go on a mission ASAP, get married right after that (and never have sex outside of marriage), get sealed in the temple (meaning you are with her and your kids for eternity), go to Church every Sunday and work pro-bono for hours of your life, give 10% of your income pre-taxes to the Church and give occasional donations, and raise all your children as good Mormons.

Are the Mystical Briefs optional?

No, I forgot about those.  I've never worn them.  My loins are like Ali's face: untouched by pagan religious rites.   :)

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:08:47 PM

...

Perhaps because my statement is 100% accurate?  Christology is the nature/essence of Christ vs. God.  It has nothing to do with any apocryphal myths about what Jesus did in North America or any lost tribes or anything like that.

Has everything to do with Christology.  Traditional Mormon beliefs are that Jesus
A) is the result of a physical union between God and Mary.  As in humping and cumming and whatnot. Not true of any other Christian or even Muslim sect.
B) Jesus was Jehova in the Old Testament, while God is Yahweh.  So it is non-Monotheistic from the outset.
C) That people can become like Jesus, and become Jesus-like regents of their own planets. 

Let's look at Mormonism's other greatest inverted-Christian hits:
A) God isn't the creator of the Universe, he is from Kolob, he just created our solar system
B) The most important, oldest Mormon prayers all ask for material power, and expect to be rewarded with Godhood or near-Godhood in the next life.  Compare this with the oldest Christian prayers: all redemption and "THINE is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory".   Christianity and Islam (for the most part on the last one) focus on servitude of God, Mormons focus upon their own wealth and success in the next world. 
C) Mormonism has consciously adopted the imagery of pre-Monotheistic Levantine religions, including Sun iconography and the spiritual importance of Bulls (hence the fountain).

As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.  I think the same might be true of Rastafarianism, but I'm not sure.  For some reason, America fermented some insane new faiths.

Spellus, these particular items are not germane to Christological discussion.  Here, this might help:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG)

I don't know why I'm continuing to debate this with you.  You have personal reasons for hating the Mormons because you have meanie relatives who are Mormon or something.  I don't know, maybe Great Uncle Brigham pulled your magic undies down and came in your asscrack one night.  Anyway, it's like you have a vendetta against the Mormons and your posts are just trying to justify this.  Therefore, no amount of defending them is going to get through to you.

In responding to your post (and keep in mind I don't know how our levels of knowledge about the LDS Church compare) point by point:

A) True, and true to the best of my knowledge.

B) Since the Mormons use the Bible unabridged to the best of my knowledge, along with the apocryphal Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and two other things whose names escape me right now, I don't know how this can be true.

C) True, and true.

A) True.

B) Not sure if this is true re: the oldest Mormon prayers (and unsure how you can know this as the early Church was rather secretive about its rites and still leans heavily on revealed truth).  The "rewarded with Godhood" thing IS true for sure, though.

C) Never heard this before.... and one picture of a font decorated with a bull motif doesn't prove anything.  Notre Dame is adorned with thousands of gargoyles yet I do not see people accusing the Catholic Church of worshipping them.

...and as I've stated already, this is all tangential.  The Mormons reject the Nicene Creed.  That alone makes them "non-Christian" in the eyes of most mainstream denominations.  But, personally, I don't care... the LDS Church claims it is Christian and is in fact the only true form of the faith (like many modern reconstructionist denominations).  I don't see how you know that they are wrong and you are right.  I mean, they believe in modern prophecy and feel that their Prophet speaks directly to God.  What if they are correct?  How can you prove they are not?  Absence of evidence ain't proof of absence. -_-

No, wait... I know the answer to that.  They're not correct because RELIGION IS A BUNCH OF NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT.  :)  Due to this fact, I don't care what they call themselves.  You want to be Christian?  Fine, you're Christian.  You want to be 'Black Muslims'?  Fine, you're Black Muslims.  Since none of it is true, it is all equally meaningless in my eyes.

I just don't get why anyone cares.  I don't particularly hate the LDS Church... I see it as no better or worse than any other church.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:08:47 PM

...

Perhaps because my statement is 100% accurate?  Christology is the nature/essence of Christ vs. God.  It has nothing to do with any apocryphal myths about what Jesus did in North America or any lost tribes or anything like that.

Has everything to do with Christology.  Traditional Mormon beliefs are that Jesus
A) is the result of a physical union between God and Mary.  As in humping and cumming and whatnot. Not true of any other Christian or even Muslim sect.
B) Jesus was Jehova in the Old Testament, while God is Yahweh.  So it is non-Monotheistic from the outset.
C) That people can become like Jesus, and become Jesus-like regents of their own planets. 

Let's look at Mormonism's other greatest inverted-Christian hits:
A) God isn't the creator of the Universe, he is from Kolob, he just created our solar system
B) The most important, oldest Mormon prayers all ask for material power, and expect to be rewarded with Godhood or near-Godhood in the next life.  Compare this with the oldest Christian prayers: all redemption and "THINE is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory".   Christianity and Islam (for the most part on the last one) focus on servitude of God, Mormons focus upon their own wealth and success in the next world. 
C) Mormonism has consciously adopted the imagery of pre-Monotheistic Levantine religions, including Sun iconography and the spiritual importance of Bulls (hence the fountain).

As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.  I think the same might be true of Rastafarianism, but I'm not sure.  For some reason, America fermented some insane new faiths.

None of this is any more ridiculous than believing that Jesus of Nazereth is the son of god.

Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2009, 07:07:55 PM
None of this is any more ridiculous than believing that Jesus of Nazereth is the son of god.

That's irrelevant.

Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2009, 07:07:55 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 03:30:30 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 03:08:47 PM

...

Perhaps because my statement is 100% accurate?  Christology is the nature/essence of Christ vs. God.  It has nothing to do with any apocryphal myths about what Jesus did in North America or any lost tribes or anything like that.

Has everything to do with Christology.  Traditional Mormon beliefs are that Jesus
A) is the result of a physical union between God and Mary.  As in humping and cumming and whatnot. Not true of any other Christian or even Muslim sect.
B) Jesus was Jehova in the Old Testament, while God is Yahweh.  So it is non-Monotheistic from the outset.
C) That people can become like Jesus, and become Jesus-like regents of their own planets. 

Let's look at Mormonism's other greatest inverted-Christian hits:
A) God isn't the creator of the Universe, he is from Kolob, he just created our solar system
B) The most important, oldest Mormon prayers all ask for material power, and expect to be rewarded with Godhood or near-Godhood in the next life.  Compare this with the oldest Christian prayers: all redemption and "THINE is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory".   Christianity and Islam (for the most part on the last one) focus on servitude of God, Mormons focus upon their own wealth and success in the next world. 
C) Mormonism has consciously adopted the imagery of pre-Monotheistic Levantine religions, including Sun iconography and the spiritual importance of Bulls (hence the fountain).

As I've stated previously, Mormonism is to Christianty what the Nation of Islam is to Islam.  The two belong in their own category rather than in the Abrahamic tree.  I think the same might be true of Rastafarianism, but I'm not sure.  For some reason, America fermented some insane new faiths.

None of this is any more ridiculous than believing that Jesus of Nazereth is the son of god.

The ridiculousness of either is not in question, the question is if one version is inline with the other.

Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 07:14:41 PM
The ridiculousness of either is not in question, the question is if one version is inline with the other.

Neither rules the other out.

QuoteYou have personal reasons for hating the Mormons because you have meanie relatives who are Mormon or something.

Either that, or I actually know something about Mormonism and Mormons.  Due to, you know, personal experience. 

There's a big distinction to be made between Mormonism the curiosity and Mormonism in reality.  Kind of like how Scientology is funny until it locks people away and starves them to death over a period of several days.  Mormonism has mellowed out a bit largely because they didn't hide their wackiness as well as Scientology and the Army was coming after them, but I don't think that fundementally changes the religion.  It's the same religion founded by a pathological liar with a taste for pubescent girls (plural being important) and a third grade education.

QuoteAnyway, it's like you have a vendetta against the Mormons and your posts are just trying to justify this.  Therefore, no amount of defending them is going to get through to you.

If people stopped arguing to justify vendettas on Languish, we'd be empty in a week.  Our biggest personalities run almost entirely on it.

Quote
B) Since the Mormons use the Bible unabridged to the best of my knowledge, along with the apocryphal Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and two other things whose names escape me right now, I don't know how this can be true.

God has two major names in the Old Testament: Yahweh and Jehova.  To the Mormons, one is Jesus and the other is the God from Kolob.

Quote
B) Not sure if this is true re: the oldest Mormon prayers (and unsure how you can know this as the early Church was rather secretive about its rites and still leans heavily on revealed truth).  The "rewarded with Godhood" thing IS true for sure, though.

Earliest as in the Temple prayer and whatnot.  "Strength in the bones and in the sinews"....it sounds wrong to Christians, for obvious reasons. 

QuoteC) Never heard this before.... and one picture of a font decorated with a bull motif doesn't prove anything.

Bulls on an altar?  In an Abrahamic faith?  Mean nothing?   :lol:

Quote
What if they are correct?  How can you prove they are not?  Absence of evidence ain't proof of absence.

Besides the obvious falsehood of all the Book of Mormon and almost everything else, I suppose you are right.  Except, of course, that President Hinckley (my great uncle) said, repeatedly, that either all of the Mormon doctrine is true or none of it is.  So by Hinckley's own standards, the bogus claims in the Book of Mormon render it bullshit on its own terms.

Quote
No, wait... I know the answer to that.  They're not correct because RELIGION IS A BUNCH OF NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT.    Due to this fact, I don't care what they call themselves.  You want to be Christian?  Fine, you're Christian.  You want to be 'Black Muslims'?  Fine, you're Black Muslims.  Since none of it is true, it is all equally meaningless in my eyes.

This is why Atheists are sometimes so terrible at studying religions.  Like misanthropic anthropologists or radical Muslim porno critics. 

There are categories in religion.  Christology (which I'll admit to not knowing a whole lot about) is a good example.  We can categorize faiths intellectually.  It's a serious intellectual activity, no more a BUNCH OF NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT than studying comparative politics or comp lit.  I doubt you'd agree that the German Democratic Republic was Democratic by any standards but its own, or that the PRC is Communist in anything but name.  Same with Mormonism.

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 06:55:23 PM
They're not correct because RELIGION IS A BUNCH OF NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT.  :) 

Almost everything humans are about is on some level nonsensical bullshit.  I don't see why this suddenly means that somebody who believes something that is completely out of whack with what Islam says can be classified as a Muslim even if they claim they are.

Just like a Communist who then says 'but I believe in private property and I believe that is the foundation for a good society' isn't a Communist no matter what they say.

Or every label and term is meaningless and we should all just admit it is all meaningless and start sitting around in French cafes contemptiously smoking cigarettes.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2009, 08:00:13 PM
It's the same religion founded by a pathological liar with a taste for pubescent girls (plural being important) and a third grade education.

Every religion was founded by profoundly damaged people.  The problem with Mormonism is that it's recent enough that we remember who they are.

Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2009, 08:43:02 PM
Every religion was founded by profoundly damaged people.  The problem with Mormonism is that it's recent enough that we remember who they are.

True which is why it is baffling people believe it.

Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 08:43:54 PM

Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2009, 08:43:02 PM
Every religion was founded by profoundly damaged people.  The problem with Mormonism is that it's recent enough that we remember who they are.

True which is why it is baffling people believe it.

Some were raised to it.  Others have been converted by the good points of the religion.  Either way, the religion doesn't go out of its way to provide opposing viewpoints, and 200 years is a long time for people.  They tend to forget things.

Well, and truthfully I don't think most people who think deeply about theology go around converting to religions.  They convert because one or more of the following is true:

* They're lonely and find the church a nice social group.

* They "need answers" and will take them from whomever shouts them loudest or first.

* They marry someone of that faith and feel it necessary to appease them.

* They're the kind of weak-willed person who just does whatever someone emphatically tells them to do, and get approached by a missionary.

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 09:50:43 PM
* They're the kind of weak-willed person who just does whatever someone emphatically tells them to do, and get approached by a missionary.

:blush:

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 09:50:43 PM
* They're the kind of weak-willed person who just does whatever someone emphatically tells them to do, and get approached by a missionary.

Sometimes that could work.  Back home, one of the times Morman missionaries came to my house, it was two very HOTT blonde girls.   

I was, at least, exceptionally polite when I declined their proselytism.  :blush:

Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2009, 01:00:27 PM
The irony of your statement is that Mormon theology as it relates to Christology is identical to the ancient Arian position.  Obviously there is no direct connection between the LDS Church and Arian Christianity, but I guess you could get away with calling them "Arian Christians".

Neither Arians nor Mormons are Christian.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2009, 07:27:04 AM
Neither Arians nor Mormons are Christian.

:yes: nor catholics

Only the pure evangelical faith as laid down in Augsburg 1530 and Uppsala 1593 is Christianity.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2009, 07:44:58 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2009, 07:27:04 AM
Neither Arians nor Mormons are Christian.

:yes: nor catholics

How can catholics not be christian? They were like the first christians lol

Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2009, 08:31:57 AM
How can catholics not be christian? They were like the first christians lol

:huh: No they weren't. The whole "state church" thing was pretty antithetical to christ's teachings.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2009, 10:04:31 AM
:huh: No they weren't. The whole "state church" thing was pretty antithetical to christ's teachings.

They worship Christ, that's all it takes.  So do the Mormon and plenty of other nutbars.  Worship Christ - you're a Christian.

And for Raz though the muslims count Christ as an early Prophet - they don't worship him - they worship God and Mohammad is his Prophet.

They don't "worship" Mohamed.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2009, 10:04:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2009, 08:31:57 AM
How can catholics not be christian? They were like the first christians lol

:huh: No they weren't. The whole "state church" thing was pretty antithetical to christ's teachings.

Catholicism is not a state church.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2009, 10:42:44 AM
They don't "worship" Mohamed.

Never said they did.

To be Christian is to believe that Christ died for your sins and the only way to redemption is through faith. As far as I'm concerned that is the non-exclusive definition of Christianity.

Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
To be Christian is to believe that Christ died for your sins and the only way to redemption is through faith. As far as I'm concerned that is the non-exclusive definition of Christianity.

That's pretty exclusive since it leaves out Catholics. 

Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2009, 06:16:39 PM

Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
To be Christian is to believe that Christ died for your sins and the only way to redemption is through faith. As far as I'm concerned that is the non-exclusive definition of Christianity.

That's pretty exclusive since it leaves out Catholics.

Then Catholics should RTFM then stop praying to idols and following the anti-christ.

Ask a Protestant/Catholic seriously if the other is going to heaven and they'll say "Maybe." Ask them if a Mormon is going to heaven and they'll say no.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2009, 10:04:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2009, 08:31:57 AM
How can catholics not be christian? They were like the first christians lol

:huh: No they weren't. The whole "state church" thing was pretty antithetical to christ's teachings.

Catholicism's not a statist Church and never has been.  It's always been influenced by different states - for example the fondness French and German rulers had for invading and threatening Rome, the move to Avignon, Mary Tudor's protection of Reginald Pole.

From Canossa to the modern day the Catholic Church has actually been arguing that Church and State are separate, because the Church wanted independence from the state.  Though it's only since the 19th century, ironically when Catholicism lost its state power in Italy, that the Church effectively became independent of the state and ultramontanism won out over other statist doctrines like Gallicanism.

The conflation of Church and State was an Orthodox and a Protestant thing far more than it was a Catholic one.

And as anyone would say Christ's teachings aren't sufficient in and of themselves.  What you need is the doctrine, the law, the authority and the tradition to really judge what is or what should be dogma.  I think every real Christian Church of any significance would say that adherence to the Council of Nicea is the baseline for Christianity.  That the Arians and Mormons don't believe in what Nicea agreed I don't think they can truly be considered Christian.  They're a sect like the Gnostics, no more.

Sorry, no amount of spin can make Catholics Christian. They have strayed so far from the path it's not even funny.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 05:49:44 AM
Catholicism's not a statist Church and never has been.  It's always been influenced by different states - for example the fondness French and German rulers had for invading and threatening Rome, the move to Avignon, Mary Tudor's protection of Reginald Pole.

From Canossa to the modern day the Catholic Church has actually been arguing that Church and State are separate, because the Church wanted independence from the state.  Though it's only since the 19th century, ironically when Catholicism lost its state power in Italy, that the Church effectively became independent of the state and ultramontanism won out over other statist doctrines like Gallicanism.

The conflation of Church and State was an Orthodox and a Protestant thing far more than it was a Catholic one.

  I think every real Christian Church of any significance would say that adherence to the Council of Nicea is the baseline for Christianity.  That the Arians and Mormons don't believe in what Nicea agreed I don't think they can truly be considered Christian.  They're a sect like the Gnostics, no more.

Let's start with the council of Nicea--convened by the emperor and presided over by himself and tell me that's not a state church.

Quote
And as anyone would say Christ's teachings aren't sufficient in and of themselves.  What you need is the doctrine, the law, the authority and the tradition to really judge what is or what should be dogma.

This sounds like complete BS to me. If christ is the son of god then surely it is his words that matter and not those of mere mortals.

Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2009, 07:08:11 AM
Let's start with the council of Nicea--convened by the emperor and presided over by himself and tell me that's not a state church.

I didn't think we were talking about antiquity because it's the least contentious period of Christian history.  Every single Church and sect claims that it's the one living up to this period.

QuoteThis sounds like complete BS to me. If christ is the son of god then surely it is his words that matter and not those of mere mortals.

How do you decide when there are more than one possible interpretations?  Through tradition, ecclesiastical authority and existing doctrine.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 03:22:49 AM
I didn't think we were talking about antiquity because it's the least contentious period of Christian history.  Every single Church and sect claims that it's the one living up to this period.

:blink: Most major protestant churches only trace their history as organized faiths to the 16th or 17th centuries. Presbyterian - John Calvin, around 1537; Baptist - 1609; Lutheran - somewhere between the Diet of Worms and 1628 (solid date for the first American Lutheran church, no solid date for first official Lutheran church, but I'm sure it wasn't organized by Luther himself).

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 05:49:44 AM
That the Arians and Mormons don't believe in what Nicea agreed I don't think they can truly be considered Christian.  They're a sect like the Gnostics, no more.

I'm staying out of the Mormon piece, but this is not a tenable statement with respect to the Arians.  Some of the most important early Church fathers had what we now call Arian beliefs.  It is just as accurate -- probably moreso -- to call Athanasius and his followers "a sect like the Gnostics".  Just because the victors rewrite the histories doesn't mean we have to accept their word for it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 03:22:49 AM
I didn't think we were talking about antiquity because it's the least contentious period of Christian history.  Every single Church and sect claims that it's the one living up to this period.

We are talking about antiquity. I was responding to the contention that the roman church were the original christians.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 24, 2009, 08:16:47 AM
:blink: Most major protestant churches only trace their history as organized faiths to the 16th or 17th centuries. Presbyterian - John Calvin, around 1537; Baptist - 1609; Lutheran - somewhere between the Diet of Worms and 1628 (solid date for the first American Lutheran church, no solid date for first official Lutheran church, but I'm sure it wasn't organized by Luther himself).

They almost all identify with the Church Fathers, however.  Calvinism is effectively Augustine minus Bishops.  The Church fathers are seen as part of the 'pure' Christianity for most Protestant churches, that is they're true Christians before later Catholic heresies and the Protestant churches saw themselves as picking up on that

QuoteI'm staying out of the Mormon piece, but this is not a tenable statement with respect to the Arians.  Some of the most important early Church fathers had what we now call Arian beliefs.  It is just as accurate -- probably moreso -- to call Athanasius and his followers "a sect like the Gnostics".  Just because the victors rewrite the histories doesn't mean we have to accept their word for it.

I mean some of the earlier Church fathers seem to have been non-trinitarian, but they luckily died before the heresy.  So in a similar way to Augustine as a proto-Protestant in belief they could have been earlier suggestions of Arianism but we don't know if they would have been heretic or not.  Would the authority of the Church and Church Councils have overwhelmed those views?

QuoteWe are talking about antiquity. I was responding to the contention that the roman church were the original christians.

Okay but if your problem is that Christianity became a state Church with Constantine then there can't be any Christian Church whatsoever.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 11:34:59 AM
Okay but if your problem is that Christianity became a state Church with Constantine then there can't be any Christian Church whatsoever.

No, christianity didn't become a state church. Roman Catholicism became a state church. There may not be a roman church, but any of the various underground churches that existed during the period could still have existed, perhaps even thrived depending on the tolerances of the government. Many more could have sprung into being. Some might have become state churches, others would not because that was antithetical to their beliefs.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:14:52 PM
No, christianity didn't become a state church. Roman Catholicism became a state church.

Have you informed the Orthodox Churches of this historical fact?  They sure seem convinced it was they who became the state church.

Also churches who reject the foundation of the orthodoxy hammered out by Constantine and co are pretty rare, even today.

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 12:23:07 PM

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:14:52 PM
No, christianity didn't become a state church. Roman Catholicism became a state church.

Have you informed the Orthodox Churches of this historical fact?  They sure seem convinced it was they who became the state church.

Well, ok there were others. My point is it wasn't christianity as a whole.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:24:13 PM
Well, ok there were others. My point is it wasn't christianity as a whole.

How many mainstream churches seriously reject the Nicene Creed?  Or embrace those ideas Constantine and co declared heretical?  None that I know of.

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 12:26:00 PM
How many mainstream churches seriously reject the Nicene Creed?  Or embrace those ideas Constantine and co declared heretical?  None that I know of.

Does it necessarily follow from that that without nicea there would be no christian church?

Yes there were other churches. No they did not become large. The atmosphere of the time was not conducive to that sort of thing. See: Albigensians.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 11:34:59 AM
I mean some of the earlier Church fathers seem to have been non-trinitarian, but they luckily died before the heresy.  So in a similar way to Augustine as a proto-Protestant in belief they could have been earlier suggestions of Arianism but we don't know if they would have been heretic or not.  Would the authority of the Church and Church Councils have overwhelmed those views?

:D

it's hard to read how serious you are being here . . . We are talking about a rule of recognition - ie what distinguishes "christian" from "non-christian".  Of course any such rule is arbitrary, but still it seems to me a definition that excludes a broad swath of the earliest known Christians (but then excepts them through a chronological technicality) doesn't work.  The logic of your position if not its statement excludes all non-Catholics - the Protties come in only because they hark to the Church Fathers, but you concede that the Fathers were not uniformly Nicene (or its proto-equivalent to the extent that something like that can even be logically posited) or even that the majority were. 

Maximus may be overly blunt but his point is well taken - Nicaea (and chalcedon, etc) are inherently political events where a secular power is coming in centuries after the fact an imposing a credal statement by force.  I can't see any rational or principled reason for saying that the good faith dissenters from the statement lose their claim to be part of the faith.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:30:14 PM
Does it necessarily follow from that that without nicea there would be no christian church?

That is an impossibly question to answer.  It is almost like asking would there be a Republic of Italy if Rome had been destroyed by Carthage.

QuoteYes there were other churches. No they did not become large. The atmosphere of the time was not conducive to that sort of thing. See: Albigensians.

Yet even after two hundred years without said atmosphere almost everybody still agrees the Nicene orthodoxy is correct.  Virtually none of the Protties have broken with it.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:30:14 PM
Yes there were other churches. No they did not become large. The atmosphere of the time was not conducive to that sort of thing. See: Albigensians.

The Albigensians are around 6-700 years later and were the largest outbreak of heresy since the Council of Nicea.  It's worth saying that in terms of state-church union the (Roman) Catholic Church very often argued against the state, unlike the Eastern Churches.

The rise of Arianism, which was condemned by the Council of Nicea, first brought the Western Church to prominence because the Western Church stayed far more Orthodox than the Eastern Church.  Arian was from Alexandria and his theology was popular in North Africa and around the Levant, in the Western Church it never achieved a similar success.

Similarly in later Christological crises, such as the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies, they proved most popular in the Levant and the, by then, Byzantine Emperors regularly pushed for councils to try and sort out some sort of compromise.  Having your Empire divided by obscure, but strongly felt theological arguments wasn't useful.  Those compromises were more than once supported by the Patriarch.  It was Rome which was able to stand firm for Orthodoxy even if it was an extreme position, because Rome was distant from the state's power and its Church, the Western Church, wasn't wracked by internal theological dispute.

Arguably the Roman Catholic Church arose out of an argument with state power, and was always defined by the compromises and challenges of state power: it could oppose Imperial heresies because the Empire couldn't strike; it couldn't oppose a French King (any French King) with a penchant for crossing the Alps.  In antiquity Rome was more able to avoid the pressure of an Imperial power it recognised (though in avoiding that pressure it was declaring its own state-like powers); in the Medieval period it was able to theoretically declare independence from Imperial power (at Canossa); in the Renaissance the Catholic Reformation declared Rome's global non-statist ambitions.

As I say the Roman Catholic Church has always had to deal with state power, but then it's been around in some form or other for more than 1500 years, at least.

QuoteDoes it necessarily follow from that that without nicea there would be no christian church?

I think a Christian Church that didn't recognise the divinity of Christ and the Trinity would be almost unrecognisable.

Sheilbh the problem is that "the Levant" was the heart of early Christianity and most of the early important figures in Christianity came from there.  Including Jesus and all his disciples of course - but more than that Christianity as a religion is really the mixing together of a Jewish heresy with Greek ideas.

Your argument about the (Western) Roman Church being the bulwark of orthodoxy is a bit of ahistorical malarkey: Nicaea was not a conflict between an orthodox "West" and an "East" mired an heresy - rather it was a conflict between eastern prelates (and the theological "schools" of Alexandria and Antioch).  All of the key players on the Nicene side were "Eastern" including of course Athanasius himself.  The relevance of the Western Church to the council can probably best be signified by the fact that the Pope did not attend, and his legates played no significant role. 

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 02:43:52 PM
That is an impossibly question to answer.  It is almost like asking would there be a Republic of Italy if Rome had been destroyed by Carthage.

I'm not asking whether the answer is yes or no. I'm asking whether the answer is necessarily no.

Sheilbh was saying that without Nicaea there would be no church. My argument is that there still could have been churches, they just would have taken a different form and would probably have been less catholic and less powerful. Churches existed before Nicaea, I see no reason why they would not continue.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 02:59:27 PM
Sheilbh the problem is that "the Levant" was the heart of early Christianity and most of the early important figures in Christianity came from there.  Including Jesus and all his disciples of course - but more than that Christianity as a religion is really the mixing together of a Jewish heresy with Greek ideas.

I'd agree with that. 

QuoteYour argument about the (Western) Roman Church being the bulwark of orthodoxy is a bit of ahistorical malarkey: Nicaea was not a conflict between an orthodox "West" and an "East" mired an heresy - rather it was a conflict between eastern prelates (and the theological "schools" of Alexandria and Antioch).  All of the key players on the Nicene side were "Eastern" including of course Athanasius himself.  The relevance of the Western Church to the council can probably best be signified by the fact that the Pope did not attend, and his legates played no significant role.

Sorry I got my time mixed up.  After the Council of Nicaea it is the Western Church, led by St. Ambrose, that defends Nicene orthodoxy against a resurgent Arianism with the state support of a number of Emperors, both Eastern and Western.  It's from Ambrose, not Nicaea, that the Western Church comes to some importance as a relative bulwark of orthodoxy.  That's a process that continues as imperial power in the West collapses and Emperors are less able to threaten and dominate the Western Church.

QuoteI can't see any rational or principled reason for saying that the good faith dissenters from the statement lose their claim to be part of the faith.

I think it's the necessary conclusion to any Christian belief system.  If faith is a core element of salvation, then surely error in faith leads to damnation?  I don't think you could logically be a Catholic without adhering to the entire doctrine of the Catholic Church, or that you could be a Calvinist without believing that faith alone is the basis of salvation.  I think Christianity is, and always has been, a rather exclusive religion.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 03:17:37 PM
Sheilbh was saying that without Nicaea there would be no church. My argument is that there still could have been churches, they just would have taken a different form and would probably have been less catholic and less powerful. Churches existed before Nicaea, I see no reason why they would not continue.

I said there wouldn't be any Christian Churches.  I don't think there would be because the sects that would arise wouldn't be what we consider to be Christian.  They wouldn't believe Christ was God.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 02:43:57 PM
The Albigensians are around 6-700 years later and were the largest outbreak of heresy since the Council of Nicea.  It's worth saying that in terms of state-church union the (Roman) Catholic Church very often argued against the state, unlike the Eastern Churches.

Quote from: Valmy
Yet even after two hundred years without said atmosphere almost everybody still agrees the Nicene orthodoxy is correct.  Virtually none of the Protties have broken with it.

I think there is a misunderstanding, probably due to the fact that I started out with incorrect terminology. To me a state church is any church that strives for secular power, but I can see how that may be incorrect. The roman church has nearly always tried to influence various governments, and for a time was a secular power in its own right.

So while a church may indeed accept the Nicene Creed, they may reject the secular authority of the council.

I will admit to a certain amount of personal interest in the matter although I do not share the beliefs of any of the involved parties. My family, for as many generations back as I can track them(7 or 8 generations dating back to 18th century Prussia), have belonged to such a church.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 03:26:22 PM
I said there wouldn't be any Christian Churches.  I don't think there would be because the sects that would arise wouldn't be what we consider to be Christian.  They wouldn't believe Christ was God.

Why not? There were churches that believed in the divinity of christ before the council. Why would they suddenly change?

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 03:23:19 PM
I think it's the necessary conclusion to any Christian belief system.  If faith is a core element of salvation, then surely error in faith leads to damnation? 

But this is really saying that Catholic (or whatever Christian sect one chooses to be the correct one) = Christianity which is not really helpful.  And even within catholicism there are ranges of tolerated diversity of opinion on some issues.

It isn't very difficult to imagine a counterfactual world where Arianism triumphs and the Athanasian position becomes a minority or even one where the issue never becomes a critical one theologically (it wasn't for the first couple hundred years of Christianity).  It seems odd to me to claim that in such world the Nicene position would amount to being "non-Christian", just like it seems odd to me to say that Arians, Monophysites or Nestorians (e.g.) aren't christian.

But then again, i am Jewish, and most Jews don't think about heresy in the same way.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 03:33:50 PMBut this is really saying that Catholic (or whatever Christian sect one chooses to be the correct one) = Christianity which is not really helpful.  And even within catholicism there are ranges of tolerated diversity of opinion on some issues.

But I think that's basically the position most Churches would take, not just the Catholic one.  And I think it's a logical position if you believe, as all Christians do, that belief is a core part of what's required for salvation.

QuoteBut then again, i am Jewish, and most Jews don't think about heresy in the same way.

Well yeah, my understanding is that Judaism and Islam have generally regulated themselves with laws and, to some extent, legal traditions.  All Christian churches would, I think, emphasise belief over laws and have regulated themselves through a number of creeds that are the core beliefs of Christianity and other supplementary beliefs that are necessary for salvation.

QuoteWhy not? There were churches that believed in the divinity of christ before the council. Why would they suddenly change?

Because the authority of the Church in an ecumenical council had declared that the divinity of Christ is a Christian belief.  From that point, in terms of all Christian Churches descended from Nicaea, you can't have Christianity without the divinity of Christ.  You have something else. 

Ironically I think the most Arian looking Church is probably the Roman Catholic because they really emphasise Christ the man: the suffering, the mother, the sacrifice.  I think those are probably the elements that a religion that believed Christ was not God, was just the son of God, the most perfect man would be interested in.

It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2009, 03:41:42 PM
Because the authority of the Church in an ecumenical council had declared that the divinity of Christ is a Christian belief.  From that point, in terms of all Christian Churches descended from Nicaea, you can't have Christianity without the divinity of Christ.  You have something else. 

:huh: I'm starting to get the feeling you're not reading what I'm saying. You can't really classify sects as nicene or non-nicene in a world where Nicaea does not exist. Of course we have no way of knowing what such a world would look like, except by looking at the situation before Nicaea. In that case we have various sects, some of which believed in christ as divine and some which did not.

In any case, my assertion had nothing to do with the creed, and everything to do with the secular authority that the council represented and the secular power that the churches descending from it wielded.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 03:17:37 PM
Sheilbh was saying that without Nicaea there would be no church.

I find it very very hard to beleive that during a time when political power and religion were wrapped up together that somehow the Romans would have embraced Christianity and not have it attain some sort of power of some kind.

So something like Nicaea would have happened or the Roman Empire would not have converted.  For one of those to happen and not the other seems incredibly unlikely.  Perhaps the Christians would have remained a minority inside a larger pagan empire?  Sol Invictus or Mithras becomes the dominant religion?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 03:45:16 PM
It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

Oh yeah.  I mean there's a million problems with imposing modern Christian teaching on the Early Church. 

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

QuoteI'm starting to get the feeling you're not reading what I'm saying. You can't really classify sects as nicene or non-nicene in a world where Nicaea does not exist. Of course we have no way of knowing what such a world would look like, except by looking at the situation before Nicaea. In that case we have various sects, some of which believed in christ as divine and some which did not.

But we don't live in such a world.  In our world for 1700 years the divinity of Christ has been the basis of Christianity and I believe is a core part of it.  There may be a million and one Churches in a non-Nicene world that don't believe in the incarnation but, as I've said, I can't see how they can be considered Christian in the sense that we understand Christianity.  They would resemble one of the plethora of odd Christ-inspired sects in the Levant before the Ecumenical Councils started.

:mellow: Alright, I'm out

Quote from: Maximus on August 25, 2009, 07:26:40 AM
:mellow: Alright, I'm out

Darn and I was coming around to your point to.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 05:31:25 AM
My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 05:31:25 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 03:45:16 PM
It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

Arianism does not deny the divinity of Christ; it merely denies his consubstantiality with God (the Father) and his eternality (Arianism posits Jesus was created).  Thus, it does not deny what I see as the core claims of Christianity: that Jesus is (a) the promised Messiah, (b) the "son of God" and hence a divine being, and (c) the ressurection.

Moreoever, it appears that the Early Church was hostile to the concept of consubstantiality, which was associated with gnosticism., and indeed the concept was condemned in pre-Nicene councils.  In this sense Nicaea represented a kind of backtracking.  My own 2 cents is that Arianism is more philosophically robust than the Nicene creed because it is extremely difficult to explain the true nature of Christ's suffering on the Cross (another essential attribute of Christianity) while maintaining constubstantiality.  Not to mention that the notion of resurrection presumes some kind of prior actual death and is also very difficult to square with consubstantiality.  This is a fundamental problem that has dogged Christian theology since Nicaea.  Athanasius, who was not particularly well-learned in philosophical methods, and frankly comes off from the historical accounts as a bit of a thug and a rabble-rouser, did not seem to be overly concerned with such nicities but he left his theological heirs with a very knotty problem.

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2009, 04:02:41 PM

I find it very very hard to beleive that during a time when political power and religion were wrapped up together that somehow the Romans would have embraced Christianity and not have it attain some sort of power of some kind.

So something like Nicaea would have happened or the Roman Empire would not have converted.  For one of those to happen and not the other seems incredibly unlikely.  Perhaps the Christians would have remained a minority inside a larger pagan empire?  Sol Invictus or Mithras becomes the dominant religion?

Possibly.

To what extent was the empire religious pre-Constantine? I have this, possibly incorrect, impression that religion didn't play much of a role in Roman government prior to that.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 09:56:17 AM
Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

I don't think Mormons are Christian.  I'm roughly were Mike Huckabee is, 'I think it's a religion, I really don't know much about it.  Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'

I'll return later to read your post properly JR.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 09:56:17 AM
Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

don't they also believe in some prophet(s)?

If so, I'm just wondering how they can be christians... It's like believing in Christ and at the same time believing in Ares.

Quote from: Maximus on August 25, 2009, 10:49:16 AM
To what extent was the empire religious pre-Constantine? I have this, possibly incorrect, impression that religion didn't play much of a role in Roman government prior to that.

There was no distinction between government and religion before Christianity.  The Priesthoods were important political posts during the Republic (and Empire for that matter) and of course every Emperor was a God or would become one once he died.  The workings of the magistrates and the like was always steeped in supersitition and religious reverance.

I think it is useful to understand that Christianity converted to Roman Empirism as much as the Roman Empire converted to Christianity.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 10:55:45 AM
I don't think Mormons are Christian.  I'm roughly were Mike Huckabee is, 'I think it's a religion, I really don't know much about it.  Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'

Key words: "I really don't know much about it."  It seems like you change the goal posts when it comes to allowing that Mormons are Christian... 

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 05:31:25 AM
My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

They believe Christ is divine.  Are you the love child of Joyce McKinney and Kirk Anderson or something?

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:15:40 AM
Key words: "I really don't know much about it."  It seems like you change the goal posts when it comes to allowing that Mormons are Christian... 

Yeah.  That's because I don't like them.  I'm not even happy calling Mormonism a religion.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 09:56:17 AM
Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

If I include Christ in my Pantheon of Pagan Gods am I a Christian?  Of course not, because there is more to being a Christian than just thinking Christ is divine.

What if I think Christ is a divine goat in human form?

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:23:51 AM
If I include Christ in my Pantheon of Pagan Gods am I a Christian?  Of course not, because there is more to being a Christian than just thinking Christ is divine.

What if I think Christ is a divine goat in human form?

What if you believe he is the saviour and redeemer of mankind?

Anyways "what if" is an endless game.  I've said before, I know and work with a bunch Mormons... everyone of them is a decent and upstanding citizen and while their beliefs may be wacky to me they are not more wacky than the beliefs of Catholics or Baptists or whoever.  They believe in Christ and call themselves Christians - so i grant them that they are Christians.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:23:51 AM
What if I think Christ is a divine goat in human form?

Oxymoron.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
Anyways "what if" is an endless game.  I've said before, I know and work with a bunch Mormons... everyone of them is a decent and upstanding citizen and while their beliefs may be wacky to me they are not more wacky than the beliefs of Catholics or Baptists or whoever.  They believe in Christ and call themselves Christians - so i grant them that they are Christians.

Well I would argue that the beliefs of Mormons are significantly more wacky than other Christians (sacred underpants anyone?), but I entirely agree with everything else you said.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
everyone of them is a decent and upstanding citizen

So are lots of people.  Every religion is full of decent and upstanding citizens.  I don't get what relevence that has to their beliefs.

QuoteThey believe in Christ and call themselves Christians - so i grant them that they are Christians

That is their opinion and they are welcome to it.  Are you saying we should not debate this topic and just hug and agree everybody is a Christian regardless of what they believe?  Because that sounds rather intellectually lazy and boring to me.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:34:44 AM
Well I would argue that the beliefs of Mormons are significantly more wacky than other Christians (sacred underpants anyone?)

Preaching all black people are going to hell for decades simply for being black is cool so long as you are nice and upstanding people (which all Mormons are...regardless of the fact most of their beliefs are repugnant).  Oh and God changed his mind on the all black people are going to hell thing.  Sometimes you have to go back and alter the un-alterable word of God.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:38:03 AM
Preaching all black people are going to hell for decades simply for being black is cool so long as you are nice and upstanding people (which all Mormons are...regardless of the fact most of their beliefs are repugnant).  Oh and God changed his mind on the all black people are going to hell thing.  Sometimes you have to go back and alter the un-alterable word of God.

He was just misquoted. What he really said is that all black people are going to have a hell of a good time in heaven. he had a bad connection on his holy phone, so some of the words were cut off.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
So are lots of people.  Every religion is full of decent and upstanding citizens.  I don't get what relevence that has to their beliefs.

I grant people I know and like more leeway in their ways than I grant to people I don't know leeway in their ways.  If I didn't know any Mormons i'd probably be on your side of the debate - or just not care at all.  Having met, conversed and communicated with some, I grant them some respect for their beliefs.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
That is their opinion and they are welcome to it.  Are you saying we should not debate this topic and just hug and agree everybody is a Christian regardless of what they believe?  Because that sounds rather intellectually lazy and boring to me.

No, i'm not saying that.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
That is their opinion and they are welcome to it.  Are you saying we should not debate this topic and just hug and agree everybody is a Christian regardless of what they believe?  Because that sounds rather intellectually lazy and boring to me.

No, but rather that everyone who says they are a Christian can be called a Christian.  It's not like there's any magical advantage to being called a Christian after all.

It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:38:03 AM
Preaching all black people are going to hell for decades simply for being black is cool so long as you are nice and upstanding people (which all Mormons are...regardless of the fact most of their beliefs are repugnant).  Oh and God changed his mind on the all black people are going to hell thing.  Sometimes you have to go back and alter the un-alterable word of God.

Pretty sure we could find some nefarious preaching on the part of "true Christians" as well.  Moving away from those aspects should be a cause for applause.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
No, but rather that everyone who says they are a Christian can be called a Christian.

I can see why some Christians may find that unsatisfactory.  I don't particular care for it when "Jews for Jesus" types call themselves Jews.  It may not impact my life directly but it strikes me as fraudulent.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 11:51:24 AM
I can see why some Christians may find that unsatisfactory.  I don't particular care for it when "Jews for Jesus" types call themselves Jews.  It may not impact my life directly but it strikes me as fraudulent.

Are "Jews for Jesus" Christians?  Are Christians Post-Messianic Jews?

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:53:05 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 11:51:24 AM
I can see why some Christians may find that unsatisfactory.  I don't particular care for it when "Jews for Jesus" types call themselves Jews.  It may not impact my life directly but it strikes me as fraudulent.

Are "Jews for Jesus" Christians?  Are Christians Post-Messianic Jews?

Yes and no.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 11:51:24 AM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
No, but rather that everyone who says they are a Christian can be called a Christian.

I can see why some Christians may find that unsatisfactory.  I don't particular care for it when "Jews for Jesus" types call themselves Jews.  It may not impact my life directly but it strikes me as fraudulent.

I think if someone calls themselves a "Jew for Jesus" you know exactly where they stand.  I don't see how it could be fraudulent.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

Doesn't Christian thinking consider the complicated and obscure definitions and barriers as forming the difference between salvation and damnation?

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:56:02 AM
I think if someone calls themselves a "Jew for Jesus" you know exactly where they stand.  I don't see how it could be fraudulent.

They claim to be actual Jews, when in fact they are some sort of Baptists.

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 12:12:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:56:02 AM
I think if someone calls themselves a "Jew for Jesus" you know exactly where they stand.  I don't see how it could be fraudulent.

They claim to be actual Jews, when in fact they are some sort of Baptists.

No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 12:12:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

Doesn't Christian thinking consider the complicated and obscure definitions and barriers as forming the difference between salvation and damnation?

Some Christian thinking, yes.  Generally not the thinking I spend a lot of time listening to.  :)

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

Its a laudable goal but put in the historical context of christianity you statement makes no sense.  Chrstianity has always defined itself as being something other and many have battled and died over who can come within that definition.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:15:16 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 12:12:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:56:02 AM
I think if someone calls themselves a "Jew for Jesus" you know exactly where they stand.  I don't see how it could be fraudulent.

They claim to be actual Jews, when in fact they are some sort of Baptists.

No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

Their purpose is to convert Jews by claiming that you can be Jewish and still believe Jesus is the Messiah.

I agree that it is ludicrous, but that doesn't change what they are doing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 12:22:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

Its a laudable goal but put in the historical context of christianity you statement makes no sense.  Chrstianity has always defined itself as being something other and many have battled and died over who can come within that definition.

Your historical point is of course correct, but I'm not sure how it's important today.

Just because Arianism (to pick from amongst many, many examples) caused significant bloodshed back in the day doesn't mean it needs to be a significant issue now.

Minsky and Malthus; if this hypothetical "Jew for Jesus" followed all the Mosaic laws and respected (and studied) the Talmud in addition to the new testement, and was matrlineally okay, could they then be a Jew and a Christian simultaneously? I think the Ebionites and earliest Christians would take exception to the idea that the two religious labels are totally mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 12:24:16 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:15:16 PM
No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

Their purpose is to convert Jews by claiming that you can be Jewish and still believe Jesus is the Messiah.

I agree that it is ludicrous, but that doesn't change what they are doing.

If someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:15:16 PM
No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

They are using it in an intentional misleading way.  They whole  point of Jew for Jesus is to mislead Jews and get them to convert to what is basically Christianity.  It is funded and run by evangelical Christian groups.

I was not aware Malthus had the power to force anybody to use or not use words so why are you encouraging him to "let them" is Malthus the freaking dictator of Toronto or something?  He certainly is allowed to have an opinion on what people choose to call themselves.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:30:33 PM
If someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

What?  I feel it is the right of everybody to have an opinion and thoughts on beliefs.  Why shouldn't I believe somebody's beliefs are wrong if I indeed think that?

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:33:19 PM
I was not aware Malthus had the power to force anybody to use or not use words so why are you encouraging him to "let them" is Malthus the freaking dictator of Toronto or something?  He certainly is allowed to have an opinion on what people choose to call themselves.

He is allowed to have an opinion, and I am allowed to tell him his opinion is wrong.  :)

Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2009, 12:27:15 PM
Minsky and Malthus; if this hypothetical "Jew for Jesus" followed all the Mosaic laws and respected (and studied) the Talmud in addition to the new testement, and was matrlineally okay, could they then be a Jew and a Christian simultaneously? I think the Ebionites and earliest Christians would take exception to the idea that the two religious labels are totally mutually exclusive.

This is a hypothetical person because 'Jews for Jesus' specifically deny the Talmud.

Now a Jew who happens to have beliefs identical to the very early Jewish Christianity thing?  I have never heard of such a group but they would probably be disowned by both modern Jews and Christians.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:37:48 PM
He is allowed to have an opinion, and I am allowed to tell him his opinion is wrong.  :)

Your opinion seems based on ignorance and misinformation to me.  That is exactly what Jews for Jesus is all about though.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:30:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 12:24:16 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:15:16 PM
No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

Their purpose is to convert Jews by claiming that you can be Jewish and still believe Jesus is the Messiah.

I agree that it is ludicrous, but that doesn't change what they are doing.

If someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

I don't think some 6'1 300 pound blonde southerner isn't a Cohen just because he thinks he is. There's a raher arduous conversion process into Judaism for just that reason.  Though I'm not sure why anyone would claim to be a Jew rather than just the descendant of the Ancient Israelites like some whacko groups.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
Pretty sure we could find some nefarious preaching on the part of "true Christians" as well.  Moving away from those aspects should be a cause for applause.

I know everything is equal and I should never use my brain and have an opinion about anything I know.

Holding onto obviously false and evil beliefs until your church fathers suddenly turn around and say the words have changed is a cause for contempt not applause.  Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 11:47:03 AM
Having met, conversed and communicated with some, I grant them some respect for their beliefs.

I respect alot of people as good people.  Every religion has good people but that does not mean their beliefs all deserve respect, unless it is your policy to respect everything equally.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
Your opinion seems based on ignorance and misinformation to me. 

How is my opinion based on ignorance and misinformation?  My opinion is very simply that people can call themselves whatever they want, and that we should accept the label that people choose to use to describe themselves.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
No, but rather that everyone who says they are a Christian can be called a Christian.  It's not like there's any magical advantage to being called a Christian after all.

It may be "boring", but trying to come up with needlessly complicated and obscure definitions and barriers on who is or is not a Christian seems to have little point.

So when somebody from a different faith asks you 'so tell me about Christianity' you say that it is whatever anybody wants to believe who calls themselves a Christian?

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:49:07 PM
How is my opinion based on ignorance and misinformation?  My opinion is very simply that people can call themselves whatever they want, and that we should accept the label that people choose to use to describe themselves.

Even if that label is used as an intentional attempt to decieve?  Because essentially you are telling me to accept anything people tell me regardless of their motives.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:39:41 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2009, 12:27:15 PM
Minsky and Malthus; if this hypothetical "Jew for Jesus" followed all the Mosaic laws and respected (and studied) the Talmud in addition to the new testement, and was matrlineally okay, could they then be a Jew and a Christian simultaneously? I think the Ebionites and earliest Christians would take exception to the idea that the two religious labels are totally mutually exclusive.

This is a hypothetical person because 'Jews for Jesus' specifically deny the Talmud.

Now a Jew who happens to have beliefs identical to the very early Jewish Christianity thing?  I have never heard of such a group but they would probably be disowned by both modern Jews and Christians.

IIRC The Early Christians denied the Talmud, and so do the Kararites as Minsky pointed out. I think if someone is of the right ancestry and keeps up all the Mosaic laws, and they are descended from Jews on the matrilineal line, then I think a reasonable argument could be made for their Jewishness. 

The issue is that I'd always be skeptical (as I'm sure Minsky and Malthus ) that it wasn't some Trojan Horse of Evangelical Christianity, where in a generation or two they are all eating ham hotdogs and getting drunk and running around on Friday night. If anything I'd expect them to follow the laws about as stringently as the more Conservative Conservative Jews do, even the Orthodox maybe.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:23:51 AM
What if I think Christ is a divine goat in human form?

Don't think that counts.
At the source, it says "God created man in his own image".
So God looks like us, and we are not goats.
Hence, if you don't believe in that, you can't be Christian.

There's nothing wrong with having an offshoot religion of Christianity that believes God is a goat, but that is no more christianism, just as modern Christians are not Jews.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2009, 12:50:32 PM
IIRC The Early Christians denied the Talmud, and so do the Kararites as Minsky pointed out. I think if someone is of the right ancestry and keeps up all the Mosaic laws, and they are descended from Jews on the matrilineal line, then I think a reasonable argument could be made for their Jewishness. 

The issue is that I'd always be skeptical (as I'm sure Minsky and Malthus ) that it wasn't some Trojan Horse of Evangelical Christianity, where in a generation or two they are all eating ham hotdogs and getting drunk and running around on Friday night. If anything I'd expect them to follow the laws about as stringently as the more Conservative Conservative Jews do, even the Orthodox maybe.

So long as it is in good faith.  My problem with 'Jews for Jesus' is it is an Evangelical trick.  They realized the biggest problem in converting Jews to their faith is that Jews want to remain Jews, so they invented this thing so they can convert Jews to evangelical Christianity and still be Jews in some sense.  They try to pass Evangelical Christianity off as 'true Judiasm' and so forth and are led by members who deceptively take Jewish names and so forth.

Now if there are some Jews out there who want to go back to the original Jewish form of Christianity and so forth...well that is different but I do not know anything about these sorts of people.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:49:12 PM
So when somebody from a different faith asks you 'so tell me about Christianity' you say that it is whatever anybody wants to believe who calls themselves a Christian?

Uh, no?

If someone asks me to tell them about Christianity I'll tell them about Christ, the Gospels, the early church fathers, the Reformation, that kind of thing.

If they ask me what the definition of a Christian is, I can tell them what I believe.  But I'm just a man.  It's up to God to judge who is or is not a Christian, not me.

Perhaps this is just a question of perspective.  I know I've mentioned I belong to a fairly liberal denomination, the United Church of Canada.  The UCC does not have any definitive declaration of faith, and instead strives towards inclusiveness.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 01:07:42 PM
Perhaps this is just a question of perspective.  I know I've mentioned I belong to a fairly liberal denomination, the United Church of Canada.  The UCC does not have any definitive declaration of faith, and instead strives towards inclusiveness.

I solve that problem myself simply by claiming to not be a Christian but rather have my own beliefs.  I guess we come at this from different angles.

Anyway my dislike of Mormons and Jews for Jesus got my blood up a little more than was probably justified in this thread.  Sorry.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:25:17 PM
Your historical point is of course correct, but I'm not sure how it's important today.

Its because to call yourself a Christain continues to be to call yourself someone who is separate and apart from the wider community and unfortunately continues to animate politics to a great degree.

The day public policy is not dictated by what people percieve as the correct biblical interpretation is the day I will agree with you that the word Christian (and all that is wrapped up in that word) has become meaningless.

Case in point.  Doctors who consider themselves christian perform abortions.  Others who think they are better christians seek to kill those same doctors.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2009, 12:50:32 PM
IIRC The Early Christians denied the Talmud

No not all Early Christian sects did.  No doubt there were some sects that wished to exclude even what Chrsitians call the Old Testament since they wished to avoid any Jewish "taint" but it still made it in - given that the argument for Jesus being the Messiah rested entirely on a particular interpretation of the Jewish Prophets.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 01:23:19 PM
No not all Early Christian sects did.  No doubt there were some sects that wished to exclude even what Chrsitians call the Old Testament since they wished to avoid any Jewish "taint" but it still made it in - given that the argument for Jesus being the Messiah rested entirely on a particular interpretation of the Jewish Prophets.

Well by 'Talmud' at that time you really mean the oral tradition.  It wasn't necessary to write all that stuff down while the Kingdom of Judah was still around.  I think the Talmud didn't start to get written down until the year 200, well after the Christian-Jewish split.

So there was no Talmud around for them to reject.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
I know everything is equal and I should never use my brain and have an opinion about anything I know.

Holding onto obviously false and evil beliefs until your church fathers suddenly turn around and say the words have changed is a cause for contempt not applause.  Your mileage may vary.

Those beliefs, at their base, anti-black, were pretty standard for the times and is still the norm in a lot of places.  I'm surprised you think that to suddenly turn around and say we've changed those beliefs is a cause for contempt... most would call that progress.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:25:17 PM
Your historical point is of course correct, but I'm not sure how it's important today.

Its because to call yourself a Christain continues to be to call yourself someone who is separate and apart from the wider community and unfortunately continues to animate politics to a great degree.

The day public policy is not dictated by what people percieve as the correct biblical interpretation is the day I will agree with you that the word Christian (and all that is wrapped up in that word) has become meaningless.

Case in point.  Doctors who consider themselves christian perform abortions.  Others who think they are better christians seek to kill those same doctors.

Do you really need to go to the "killing abortion doctors" point?  Shouldnt there be a Godwin's-type law about it when discussing religion? :bleeding:

And I never said the word Christian is meaningless.  As you point out it if far from meaningless - it in fact has a great deal of meaning for a lot of people.  It has so much meaning for people that I don't see how I can dictate how others would chose to use that word to describe themselves.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:28:11 PM
Those beliefs, at their base, anti-black, were pretty standard for the times and is still the norm in a lot of places.

That is bullshit there was nothing standard about that belief.  That is very extreme even by the standards of the times.

The worst part is that they still hold onto obviously bigoted beliefs simply because that is what they are told to believe.  I mean they are very nice about it they say 'I am sorry but that is what my faith says therefore I must oppose you'.  Yet they have a history of getting divine intervention to volt face whenever it becomes expedient.

Also I do not think they made this "progress" because they felt it was wrong but just because it was making them look bad, like the polygamy thing.

So yeah I don't think saying all black people were damned until 1978 (I mean 1978 FFS?) is particularly impressive.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 06:43:11 PM
Both Spellus and Marti hate Mormons. Therefore, they sound fun.

And Ank.  Although I should clarify that I despise Mormonism and not Mormons.
Very important difference.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 08:18:10 AM
:huh:

You guys are acting like there is some legal definition of "Christian".  Unless you are some flavor of believing Christian yourself, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to denigrate the Mormons.  Their theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity, yes, but I'm not sure why that makes them "not Christian".  They still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God.

So?  They've cheerfully followed the teachings of a half-literate conman and produced an indigenous American religion that looks a lot like Christianity, but is clearly in a league of their own.  Just because it has Christian flavorings, that doesn't make it Christian.

Quote from: Queequeg on August 25, 2009, 12:27:15 PM
Minsky and Malthus; if this hypothetical "Jew for Jesus" followed all the Mosaic laws and respected (and studied) the Talmud in addition to the new testement, and was matrlineally okay, could they then be a Jew and a Christian simultaneously? I think the Ebionites and earliest Christians would take exception to the idea that the two religious labels are totally mutually exclusive.

I think valmy's posts satisfactorily respond to this question.

Hypothetically, the answer could be yes.  In fact, I knew someone who took this Ebionite position although eventually they ended up in mainline Judaism.  From the Judaic perspective, to the extent such a person believed in the divinity of Christ, they would be guilty of the very serious sin of idolotry.  However, you can commit terrible sins and still remain Jewish.  From the other side, I can't see why a voluntary decision to obey Mosaic or even talmudic restrictions would make one non-Christian. although some sects may take different positions.

As a practical matter, "Jews for Jesus" are not neo-Ebionites: they are professional proseltyzers using a deceptive marketing gimmick.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 01:34:03 PM
That is bullshit there was nothing standard about that belief.  That is very extreme even by the standards of the times.

The worst part is that they still hold onto obviously bigoted beliefs simply because that is what they are told to believe.  I mean they are very nice about it they say 'I am sorry but that is what my faith says therefore I must oppose you'.  Yet they have a history of getting divine intervention to volt face whenever it becomes expedient.

Also I do not think they made this "progress" because they felt it was wrong but just because it was making them look bad, like the polygamy thing.

So yeah I don't think saying all black people were damned until 1978 (I mean 1978 FFS?) is particularly impressive.

Blacks were banned from the Mormon priesthood from the 1848 until 1978 and from worshipping in a Mormon Temple.  They weren't "damned". 

Second to that 1978 shouldn't be so shocking... US had segregation issues in the 60's and 70's in many areas.

Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 25, 2009, 01:40:41 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2009, 08:18:10 AM
:huh:

You guys are acting like there is some legal definition of "Christian".  Unless you are some flavor of believing Christian yourself, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to denigrate the Mormons.  Their theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity, yes, but I'm not sure why that makes them "not Christian".  They still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God.

So?  They've cheerfully followed the teachings of a half-literate conman and produced an indigenous American religion that looks a lot like Christianity, but is clearly in a league of their own.  Just because it has Christian flavorings, that doesn't make it Christian.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Mormon history, and your general distaste of mormonism.

But I don't get why you would reject them as Christians?  Yes they have major doctrinal differences with most of the rest of Christianity.  But they accept Christ as saviour, use the image of the cross, and even call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".

What purpose is there in denying a Mormon in Christian other than to be insulting to that person?

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:30:33 PMIf someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

You're a proddie Canadian prosecutor with Ukranian pretensions.  So yeah, your opinion on the matter doesn't signify much.  However, it doesn't follow that every other opinion on the subject is as worthless as yours :)

I can't think of any other mainstream religion that banned people from worshipping on the basis of race as late as the 1970s . . .

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
I can't think of any other mainstream religion that banned people from worshipping on the basis of race as late as the 1970s . . .

However I can think of several, including the Mormons, to this day, that have banned people from worshipping on the basis of their sexuality.

Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2009, 01:46:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:30:33 PMIf someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

You're a proddie Canadian prosecutor with Ukranian pretensions.  So yeah, your opinion on the matter doesn't signify much.  However, it doesn't follow that every other opinion on the subject is as worthless as yours :)

Was there any need to be that insulting Jacob?

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 01:07:42 PMUh, no?

If someone asks me to tell them about Christianity I'll tell them about Christ, the Gospels, the early church fathers, the Reformation, that kind of thing.

If they ask me what the definition of a Christian is, I can tell them what I believe.  But I'm just a man.  It's up to God to judge who is or is not a Christian, not me.

Perhaps this is just a question of perspective.  I know I've mentioned I belong to a fairly liberal denomination, the United Church of Canada.  The UCC does not have any definitive declaration of faith, and instead strives towards inclusiveness.

So if someone asks me about Christianity and I claim to be one and make on up about raping virgins being a virtue and that we should eat the flesh of the dead in our community then that's perfectly fine and that belief, spurious as it is, must be recognized as just as Christian as any other sect?  Sounds a bit silly to me.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 01:50:53 PMWas there any need to be that insulting Jacob?

Probably not, so I apologize.

The point remains, just because you don't care who calls themselves Jewish doesn't mean that anyone who calls themselves Jewish are - especially in cases where it is an underhanded gimmick to convert people to Christianity that has nothing to do with Judaism.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:28:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
I know everything is equal and I should never use my brain and have an opinion about anything I know.

Holding onto obviously false and evil beliefs until your church fathers suddenly turn around and say the words have changed is a cause for contempt not applause.  Your mileage may vary.

Those beliefs, at their base, anti-black, were pretty standard for the times and is still the norm in a lot of places.  I'm surprised you think that to suddenly turn around and say we've changed those beliefs is a cause for contempt... most would call that progress.

Really? What other large, or even moderately sized Christain sect argued that Blacks were damned simply for their skin color?

The closest thing I can thing of is southern evangelicals arguing the Curse of Cannan condemned blacks to perpetual slavery, but even they didn't argue that they were damned.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
I can't think of any other mainstream religion that banned people from worshipping on the basis of race as late as the 1970s . . .

Second to that there must have been some Church segregation in the US South into the seventies no?  Possibly still is? 

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2009, 01:56:50 PM

Really? What other large, or even moderately sized Christain sect argued that Blacks were damned simply for their skin color?

The closest thing I can thing of is southern evangelicals arguing the Curse of Cannan condemned blacks to perpetual slavery, but even they didn't argue that they were damned.

Mormons don't say that black people are damned. - They were banned from the priesthood - not "damned".

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 01:27:18 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 01:23:19 PM
No not all Early Christian sects did.  No doubt there were some sects that wished to exclude even what Chrsitians call the Old Testament since they wished to avoid any Jewish "taint" but it still made it in - given that the argument for Jesus being the Messiah rested entirely on a particular interpretation of the Jewish Prophets.

Well by 'Talmud' at that time you really mean the oral tradition.  It wasn't necessary to write all that stuff down while the Kingdom of Judah was still around.  I think the Talmud didn't start to get written down until the year 200, well after the Christian-Jewish split.

So there was no Talmud around for them to reject.

Yes. Exactly.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:49:18 PM
However I can think of several, including the Mormons, to this day, that have banned people from worshipping on the basis of their sexuality.

Yep and that is a BIG reason (especially they way the Mormons usually are about it 'oh I like homosexuals just fine but my religion requires me to be a bigot') I dislike them today.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 01:28:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:25:17 PM
Your historical point is of course correct, but I'm not sure how it's important today.

Its because to call yourself a Christain continues to be to call yourself someone who is separate and apart from the wider community and unfortunately continues to animate politics to a great degree.

The day public policy is not dictated by what people percieve as the correct biblical interpretation is the day I will agree with you that the word Christian (and all that is wrapped up in that word) has become meaningless.

Case in point.  Doctors who consider themselves christian perform abortions.  Others who think they are better christians seek to kill those same doctors.

Do you really need to go to the "killing abortion doctors" point?  Shouldnt there be a Godwin's-type law about it when discussing religion? :bleeding:

And I never said the word Christian is meaningless.  As you point out it if far from meaningless - it in fact has a great deal of meaning for a lot of people.  It has so much meaning for people that I don't see how I can dictate how others would chose to use that word to describe themselves.

Ok, if you dont like the example of Chrstians killing doctors who perform abortions how about the example of Christians disagreeing over whether homosexuals should be married in church ceremonies, whether homosexuals can act as church leaders etc.

The problem you face is that the definition of what is and who is Christian is still relevant today.  You cant ignore the two thousand years of history and pretend it doesnt have an impact of your faith today.

Definitions are important.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:58:17 PM
Mormons don't say that black people are damned. - They were banned from the priesthood - not "damned".

Brigham Young said the Black people could not be redeemed so therefore could not be priests.  Now...being unredeemable may not be the same as damned but close enough for me.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:02:08 PM

Yep and that is a BIG reason (especially they way the Mormons usually are about it 'oh I like homosexuals just fine but my religion requires me to be a bigot') I dislike them today.

Hey I don't disagree.  I don't associate with any religion or Atheism (because I find most Atheists as stalwart in their unbelief as any religious person is a zealot for their belief).

Anyways I could care less who's a Christian and who's not.  Like I said, I work with some Mormons, go fly fishing with one of them all the time and he says he's a Christian... so good for him... I'm not going to tell him he's a heretic because i'm probably one too and I don't care one way or the other because it's all a pile of shit anyways.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:05:54 PM

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:58:17 PM
Mormons don't say that black people are damned. - They were banned from the priesthood - not "damned".

Brigham Young said the Black people could not be redeemed so therefore could not be priests.  Now...being unredeemable may not be the same as damned but close enough for me.

If that's close enough for you why isn't them accepting Christ as their saviour close enough?

Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2009, 01:51:15 PM
So if someone asks me about Christianity and I claim to be one and make on up about raping virgins being a virtue and that we should eat the flesh of the dead in our community then that's perfectly fine and that belief, spurious as it is, must be recognized as just as Christian as any other sect?  Sounds a bit silly to me.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some kind of crazy Christian that believes in cannibalism and raping virgins.  My point really  is that you should focus on on how evil and moronic those beliefs are, rather than trying to focus on "well they're not real Christians then".

Face it - a lot of Christians have done a lot of evil things over the years.  As a member of the community of faith we (as Christians) have to recognize that, and just try and deny it by saying "someone who would do that isn't a real Christian".

Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2009, 01:56:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 01:50:53 PMWas there any need to be that insulting Jacob?

Probably not, so I apologize.

:hug:

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:05:54 PM

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:58:17 PM
Mormons don't say that black people are damned. - They were banned from the priesthood - not "damned".

Brigham Young said the Black people could not be redeemed so therefore could not be priests.  Now...being unredeemable may not be the same as damned but close enough for me.

And remember every male mormon is a 'priest'.  By saying they could not be priests they were saying they could not be members of the church.

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 02:07:40 PM
If that's close enough for you why isn't them accepting Christ as their saviour close enough?

I came into this discussion at an odd time.  I was only saying that claiming Christ is divine is not sufficient to be a Christian.  If a Hindu adds Christ to his list of Gods he is still not a Christian.  But I am not necessarily saying Mormons are not.  I just think their beliefs and traditions are abhorrent.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 02:14:06 PM
And remember every male mormon is a 'priest'.  By saying they could not be priests they were saying they could not be members of the church.

That is an important point but I did not want to get into it.

I think you can be a man and be a member of the church and choose not to be a priest but almost all men are I believe.

Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:15:42 PM

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 02:07:40 PM
If that's close enough for you why isn't them accepting Christ as their saviour close enough?

I came into this discussion at an odd time.  I was only saying that claiming Christ is divine is not sufficient to be a Christian.  If a Hindu adds Christ to his list of Gods he is still not a Christian.  But I am not necessarily saying Mormons are not.  I just think their beliefs and traditions are abhorrent.

It depends - does your Hindu describe himself as a Christian?

Muslims feel that Christ was a prophet, but deny his divinity.  Many in the western world describe thesmselves as Christian, but feel that Christ as a great teacher and not the son of God (hell the onetime leader of my Church denied Christ's divinity).  The difference is what a person feels about themself, and how they describe themselves.
On the very outside fringes you're

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 03:07:09 PM
It depends - does your Hindu describe himself as a Christian?

No he probably would not.

Hence there is something a bit more than simply considering Christ a divine figure.

QuoteMany in the western world describe thesmselves as Christian, but feel that Christ as a great teacher and not the son of God (hell the onetime leader of my Church denied Christ's divinity)

Hey I think you are talking about me.

Though I would never call myself a Christian unless I was feeling particularly lazy.

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 03:07:09 PM
On the very outside fringes you're

Refraining from calling him names was very Christian of you.... :D

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:30:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 12:24:16 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2009, 12:15:16 PM
No, they claim to be a "Jew for Jesus".  You'd have to live under a rock to not understand where they are coming from.

Again if they want to use the word Jew - let them!  I'm not saying you have to let them pray at your local Temple or anything.

Their purpose is to convert Jews by claiming that you can be Jewish and still believe Jesus is the Messiah.

I agree that it is ludicrous, but that doesn't change what they are doing.

If someone believes they are Jewish and believe in Jesus, who am I to tell them that their belief is wrong?

If someone believes they are God I could not care less, if they keep it to themselves. The point is that Jews for Jesus wants other people to accept them as "Jews" for the purpose of misleading them.

Now, only the profoundly stupid are likely to be actually mislead it is true. Thing is that to most 'real' Jews it is fucking annoying to have Christians engage in these antics, claiming a kinship by religion or ethnicity that is non-existant - like having a particularly obnoxious marketer claiming to be your aunt for the purpose of selling you shit you don't want, when in reality the person is descended from folks who used to hunt your ancestors down and kill them on occasion.

If I thought these clowns were in any way sincere in believing they were both Christians and Jews at the same time, I'd think they were excentric but basically I would not care. Thing is that they aren't, it is all a sham designed specifically to target Jews for conversion. 

Quote from: PRC on August 25, 2009, 01:57:15 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
I can't think of any other mainstream religion that banned people from worshipping on the basis of race as late as the 1970s . . .

Second to that there must have been some Church segregation in the US South into the seventies no?  Possibly still is?

De facto yes, but that is different from a rule banning people of a certain race from worshipping in any church of that sect.

Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2009, 12:24:13 PM
Well, ok there were others. My point is it wasn't christianity as a whole.

Was there actually a major Christian sect that wasn't a state church?

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 03:24:49 PM
If someone believes they are God I could not care less, if they keep it to themselves.

Well fuck you too.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2009, 01:56:50 PM
Really? What other large, or even moderately sized Christain sect argued that Blacks were damned simply for their skin color?

I think the South African Dutch Reformed Church.  But you'd expect that.

QuoteThe problem you face is that the definition of what is and who is Christian is still relevant today.  You cant ignore the two thousand years of history and pretend it doesnt have an impact of your faith today.

Definitions are important.

I agree.

Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2009, 03:24:49 PM
If someone believes they are God I could not care less, if they keep it to themselves. The point is that Jews for Jesus wants other people to accept them as "Jews" for the purpose of misleading them.

Now, only the profoundly stupid are likely to be actually mislead it is true. Thing is that to most 'real' Jews it is fucking annoying to have Christians engage in these antics, claiming a kinship by religion or ethnicity that is non-existant - like having a particularly obnoxious marketer claiming to be your aunt for the purpose of selling you shit you don't want, when in reality the person is descended from folks who used to hunt your ancestors down and kill them on occasion.

If I thought these clowns were in any way sincere in believing they were both Christians and Jews at the same time, I'd think they were excentric but basically I would not care. Thing is that they aren't, it is all a sham designed specifically to target Jews for conversion.

Are there Jewish missionaries, seeking converts, bringing the word of God to the people of the world or is this just a Christian thing?

Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2009, 08:54:48 AM
Are there Jewish missionaries, seeking converts, bringing the word of God to the people of the world or is this just a Christian thing?

There is no Jewish commandmant to spread the faith while there is a Christian one to do so.  The Jews do do more outreach these days but usually that is directed at keeping Jews Jewish and not converting the gentiles.

If everyone were to become Jewish where would they get their organs?

Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2009, 08:54:48 AM
Are there Jewish missionaries, seeking converts, bringing the word of God to the people of the world or is this just a Christian thing?

Mainstream Judaism does not prostheletize. At all. There are Jewish "missionaries", but they are typically Orthodox Jews seeking to recruit other Jews to their sects.

In mainstream Judaism, converting to Judaism is possible but not supposed to be encouraged. In point of fact, there is no particular religious reason to become a Jew, since it mainly has burdens with no benefits (in the Jewish religion, non-Jews are just as likely to be considered "righteous" as Jews, in fact it is easier because they have fewer commandments they are supposed to follow).

There may be some wacky sects of Jews who aggressively seek to convert, but if so, I haven't heard of them; it certainly is not normal. Jews view such behaviour with deep suspicion; the overall impression is that it is, above all else, quite rude and pointless.

Correct, Jews do not ever proselytize and in fact discourage people from converting to Judaism.

I think I've related this story on Languish before, but I have a friend who did in fact convert to Judaism.  His background was as a Latter-Day Saint but he had 'explored' his spirituality for quite some time prior to the move to Judaism and even dabbled with Wicca for a while.

At the time he began his conversion, he was dating a Jewish girl (who is now his wife) and he insisted his interest in Judaism had nothing to do with her faith or pleasing her family or anything.  I know it sounds fishy, and to me it's likely he was interested in her faith, but he's a deeply spiritual guy so his interest certainly grew to be more than just that, if it was that at all.

Anyway, so he went to her rabbi and told him he was interested in becoming a Jew and the rabbi actually said something to the effect of, "No, you may not become a Jew."  So he kinda put that desire aside for a while but continued to read about Judaism and started attending services with her, and he went back to the rabbi again a few months later and essentially begged him to reconsider.  This time, the rabbi said somethng to the effect of "I'm impressed by how much you've learned about Judaism, but your zeal may be temporary and this is an earth shattering decision which you need to think on longer."  So he studied more and approached the rabbi a third time, and the third time the rabbi agreed to instruct him.

Apparently, the Jews have a tradition whereby anyone openly asking for conversion MUST be refused twice and then at the rabbi's discrection can begin being instructed.  So later the rabbi said he had wanted to accept him as a potential convert the second time but was tradition-bound not to.

I think it took the guy like 3 years to finish the conversion process, during which time he had to go to Hebrew school (he was the one guy there who wasn't like ten years old  :D ) and he actually had to be ritually circumcised... I say 'ritually' because he'd been medically circumcised as an infant, but because male Jews MUST be ritually circumcised, they had to do some thing where they drew blood from his penis and consecrated it to God by burning it or something.

When the process was completed, he changed his surname to Barak (IIRC converts are asked to take a new Jewish surname and are given a small list of names to choose from), and kept his given name because it was already of Hebrew origin.

Now, he is considered to have been a Jew from birth and it's considered extremely rude to treat him differently than any other Jew... in fact, Jews are to speak of converts as if they were always Jewish and to not remind them that they were ever anything else.  The thinking is that, if some desperately yearns to be a Jew, despite the heavy discouragement, then they truly have a Jewish soul and somehow got separated from their people... so in this case the conversion represents a homecoming of sorts.... and that's exactly how he described the process.

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 09:06:34 AM
Mainstream Judaism does not prostheletize. At all. There are Jewish "missionaries", but they are typically Orthodox Jews seeking to recruit other Jews to their sects.

In mainstream Judaism, converting to Judaism is possible but not supposed to be encouraged. In point of fact, there is no particular religious reason to become a Jew, since it mainly has burdens with no benefits (in the Jewish religion, non-Jews are just as likely to be considered "righteous" as Jews, in fact it is easier because they have fewer commandments they are supposed to follow).

There may be some wacky sects of Jews who aggressively seek to convert, but if so, I haven't heard of them; it certainly is not normal. Jews view such behaviour with deep suspicion; the overall impression is that it is, above all else, quite rude and pointless.

Well there is a religious reason to accept the Torah and be a righteous gentile and so forth.  It is sort of like being a Jew only you don't have to do as much.

I think theoretically the Jews are supposed to encourage all of us gentiles to do that but they rarely bother.

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 09:52:01 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 09:06:34 AM
Mainstream Judaism does not prostheletize. At all. There are Jewish "missionaries", but they are typically Orthodox Jews seeking to recruit other Jews to their sects.

In mainstream Judaism, converting to Judaism is possible but not supposed to be encouraged. In point of fact, there is no particular religious reason to become a Jew, since it mainly has burdens with no benefits (in the Jewish religion, non-Jews are just as likely to be considered "righteous" as Jews, in fact it is easier because they have fewer commandments they are supposed to follow).

There may be some wacky sects of Jews who aggressively seek to convert, but if so, I haven't heard of them; it certainly is not normal. Jews view such behaviour with deep suspicion; the overall impression is that it is, above all else, quite rude and pointless.

Well there is a religious reason to accept the Torah and be a righteous gentile and so forth.  It is sort of like being a Jew only you don't have to do as much.

I think theoretically the Jews are supposed to encourage all of us gentiles to do that but they rarely bother.

I don't think that a "righteous gentile" has to do anything religiously (with the exception of not worshipping multiple gods - still a no-no).

The seven "Noahide laws" (called that because they were given by God to Noah, the legendary ancestor of all humanity - and not a Jew) are pretty simple, as follows:

Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.

Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)

Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.

Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse (sorry Martinus  :( ).

Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.

Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4) (Sorry wierd rich Chinese people  :( )

Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

Do all seven, and you can be "righteous" even if you have never heard of Judaism (though of course idol-worshipping polytheists are still shit out of luck, as is Martinus).

Woohoo!  I'm a righteous gentile.  :cool:

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
I don't think that a "righteous gentile" has to do anything religiously (with the exception of not worshipping multiple gods - still a no-no).

It sorta requires you to believe in both the Torah and the Talmud and follow the will of the God of Israel.  How is that not religious?  Why would you do all that if you did not?

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:28:49 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
I don't think that a "righteous gentile" has to do anything religiously (with the exception of not worshipping multiple gods - still a no-no).

It sorta requires you to believe in both the Torah and the Talmud and follow the will of the God of Israel.  How is that not religious?  Why would you do all that if you did not?

Not really - you could just do all that stuff because you don't particularly care to murder folks or eat living animals, and you don't happen to worship idols. An atheist could be a "righteous gentile" as long as he didn't go around bad-mouthing the Biblical God . The prohibitions are entirely negative except for the last.

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 10:33:14 AM
Not really - you could just do all that stuff because you don't particularly care to murder folks or eat living animals, and you don't happen to worship idols. An atheist could be a "righteous gentile" as long as he didn't go around bad-mouthing the Biblical God . The prohibitions are entirely negative except for the last.

I was under the impression you only got "credit" for doing a commandment if you did it to please God, not if you just happened to already like not eating pork and resting all day Saturday.

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:53:58 AM
I was under the impression you only got "credit" for doing a commandment if you did it to please God, not if you just happened to already like not eating pork and resting all day Saturday.

AFAIK internal motivation is irrelevant for Jews and for non-Jews alike.  What matters is conduct.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:55:32 AM
AFAIK internal motivation is irrelevant for Jews and for non-Jews alike.  What matters is conduct.

Alrighty then.  I was confused by all those angry prophets telling the Jews that God spits on their sacrifices because they do not do it with the proper feeling.

Still it is not like the Jews go around preaching the seven laws of righteousness to the Gentile community.

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 10:33:14 AM
Not really - you could just do all that stuff because you don't particularly care to murder folks or eat living animals, and you don't happen to worship idols. An atheist could be a "righteous gentile" as long as he didn't go around bad-mouthing the Biblical God . The prohibitions are entirely negative except for the last.

I was under the impression you only got "credit" for doing a commandment if you did it to please God, not if you just happened to already like not eating pork and resting all day Saturday.

This points to one of the major differences between Judaism and Chistianity, and one which those more used to Christianity always find wierd.

In Judiasm, God allegedly doesn't care what you believe, as long as you do what he said. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 11:00:27 AM
In Judiasm, God allegedly doesn't care what you believe, as long as you do what he said. 

He sure sounds like he does in the OT.

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:57:07 AM
Still it is not like the Jews go around preaching the seven laws of righteousness to the Gentile community.

True enough. Though increasing the overall righteousness of Jews and non-Jews alike is supposedly a Jewish aim.

Door-to-door Jewish 'missionaries' telling random people not to eat living animals would be hilarious.  :D

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 11:01:47 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 11:00:27 AM
In Judiasm, God allegedly doesn't care what you believe, as long as you do what he said. 

He sure sounds like he does in the OT.

Really? Where?

God zaps you in the OT if you do stuff he disapproves of, not for failing to believe the right things.

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
Really? Where?

God zaps you in the OT if you do stuff he disapproves of, not for failing to believe the right things.

It's a big difference between Old and New Testament, and Judaism and Christianity more generally.

Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
Really? Where?

God zaps you in the OT if you do stuff he disapproves of, not for failing to believe the right things.

The part about how God is tired of sacrifices because he has enough dead goats and shit like that comes to mind...but I do not have time now to look it up.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:07:46 AM
It's a big difference between Old and New Testament, and Judaism and Christianity more generally.

Yeah Jesus just craps on the law is all like 'hey I am Jesus fuck you' about it.  I always thought that was a little weird.

Dude, last time I read this thread, it was in page 2.
Now is in page 7.
And my setting is at max for number of posts per page.

Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 10:55:38 PM
Dude, last time I read this thread, it was in page 2.
Now is in page 7.
And my setting is at max for number of posts per page.

What?  Does it bother you when gentiles discuss Judaism?

Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 11:08:47 AMThe part about how God is tired of sacrifices because he has enough dead goats and shit like that comes to mind...but I do not have time now to look it up.

I can't be bothered to look it up either, but I always thought the point of those bits were "you're sacrificing goats and so on, but you're doing all kinds of other bits that are bad so the goats won't get you off the hook".