user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
^ C'mon be honest, doesn't the whole story seem fishy? :o)
Very fishy, I reckon.
It DOES NOT matter. Anyone who seeks and follows the one true God can call themselves anything they want. They are ok in God's eyes. Jews, Christians, Muslims, it DOES NOT matter which name or variation of beliefs. One is NOT better than the other. Jesus and Mohammed were great men because they were highly successful in bringing people to the one God.
A covenant is a formal, solemn, and binding agreement.
So he broke the old one?
To assume that God breaks covenants is to suggest that God is not a good deal keeper. There were no conditions on the original covenant (look it up) God made with the Jews other than to follow the Torah. Jews did then and do so now.
God may give a new revelation(s) regarding a covenant but he does not break them. He does not break them based on man's behavior. If he did, everyone would be doomed.
The covenant with the Jews required them to bear witness to the one divine God in the face of all types of materialism and paganism. To bring people to the one true God. There were no monotheistic religions before Judaism. It seems that based on the numbers of Christians and Muslims in the world, they have done a fairly good job keeping their end of the covenant.
Jesus followed all the commandments in the Torah as any Jew is bound to do. He was a fully practicing Jew. He kept kosher, he observed passover, etc. It was Paul who changed the rules (look it up) to allow gentiles to join what was then a new sect of Judaism (which is what it was before Paul).
One does not have to follow Judaism to reach God, far from it. Following Islam or Christianity equally legitimate ways to Judaism to get to the life to come.
Re InternalColonel and Dingledung, I'm just curious, what is in my ballot that elicits the 'fishy' reponse?
If you mean the whole story of the miracles and the resurrection, then yes I absolutely agree, but that he was a jew, there is no doubt, or is there?
He had to have been born into some religion, and Judaism predated Islam by over 600 years in Christ's time.
Christianity does not deny all of Judaism, it is merely an extension of it.
Christianity I suppose was it's natural evolution.
It was a Loaves and fish pun, Ken, but it didn't seem to work, lol. I did mean that the miracles and resurrection stuff is a bit far fetched though.
But why is it so hard to believe in miracles IC? Christ is the Son of God and there is no doubt in my mind about that. Christ, though in human form, was really not human in the truest sense of the word; he was, but yet was not flesh. He could perform miracles because obviously he has divine powers. If we can believe that God can and does perform miracles that defy explanation, then it stands to reason that his Son does as well. I hope you don't think I'm trying to force my views on you because I truly am not. But, likewise, there is nothing that I can think of that would make be belive otherwise, short of God himself telling me otherwise. I guess in some ways I am fanatical in my beliefs, but I would never impose them on others and in fact, God does not want faith and belief forced on anyone, which is why he wants us to have free will.
I also do not believe that Jesus was any religion per se. Man has sort of created organized religion, not God. I think that Christ came to earth as an Israelite because it was people of the Jewish faith who at that time, believed in God, Christ's Father. Were Christ to return today, I have a feeling he would tell us that Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., were just labels.
I'm just one of those people who only believe in what can be proved, Patch. I don't believe in blind faith. David Blaine could show us a few miracles if you wanted to believe in it.
But I've never met you IC and I believe in you :)
That's because I do walk on water 
Now that I'd like to see! I dare you to walk across the pond and visit the colonies :)
Since Jesus never existed, he couldn't possibly have been a Jew.
I also failed to add weight to IC's loavesome fish pun, ken.
But even if Jesus really existed, and supposing for a minute he wasn't just some loony with a messiah complex and some technology that he found in the wreckage of an alien spaceship, he was just a Jew. His mates were the ones that were the Christians ("I say you are the Messiah, and I should know - I've followed a few", etc.).
And I suppose we're lucky he wasn't called Bill, otherwise his followers would have been called Billions.
Merry Billmas !!
Well we are a billion or so now!
As for the fish pun, I will pray for your sole.
Ken,
I believe Judaism is a lot older than you have previously referred.
Or was I reading that incorrectly?
The way your "12:10am" response reads it sounds like you said...Judaism was only 600 years older than Islam...but, if you are taking the position, as FFLSD did, that Christianity and Judaism are part and parcel of the same thing (which is interesting, may have merit, dunno, I'll have to consider that) then it makes sense. The historical Jesus of Nazareth predated the historical Mohammed by about 600 years.
Your verbage was a bit ambiguous. Just a clarification.
Thoughtful ballot.
Contragrain: No, it's Christianity that's about 600 years older than Islam.
And Judaism is about 1600 years older than them both. Making Judaism a lot newer than most people think.
Neal,
I thought that's what I said. Maybe my response was ambiguous.
You misinterpreted it Contra -
"Judaism predated Islam by over 600 years in Christ's time."
I was just timestamping the era of Christ as a reference point.
I know Judaism is as old as the hills.
Ever heard of the term Judeo Christian?
Good point RR, actually seen as the adjective 'oxymoron' describes a figure of speech in which two contradictory terms appear together, Judeo-Christian is what I should have used in the ballot title instead of Christian on it's own.
Ken,
You've known him longer than I--maybe I really am out of touch here--but, I didn't think RR was saying it was an oxymoron.
Were you, RR?
The question might better read exactly the opposite.
If Jesus Christ was a Jew...
Then isn't the term Judeo-Christian...
somewhat REDUNDANT?
I guess when put down to it...I do agree with at least some of what Fiddle said, don't I?
Where did I suggest he was Contra? I wasn't.
I was just reflecting on the semantics of the word 'oxymoron', 'a contradiction in terms' would have been more apt, no big deal.
Just trying to communicate here, Ken. I think this is a cool ballot. I would agree that culturally it's oxymoronic; but, ideologically? pretty much redundant. Especially when followed by the word "ethic."
It's hard to explain through typing.
Like I said Contra, no biggy, it's just a lot of people, especially practising Christians, may not be aware that the so-called son of God, who is the main protagonist in their respective religions, was in fact Jewish by birth.
It is extraordinarily paradoxical when one thinks about it.
I haven't met any folks who claim to be Christian who aren't aware of the fact that He was Jewish.
He did challenge the status quo religious establishment of the day, though. That's what got Him "rejected by His own." But not all. From what I've seen, people coming from a Jewish background make the most fervent, devout Christians. Everything He taught was intended to extend and enrich their already existent faith. Do you know any ethnic-Jew Christians? Amazing faith. Much greater than mine; but, interacting with them always enriches mine.
By the way, the term "Christ" is a title, not a name, you know that, right?
His historical name was Jesus of Nazareth. It amazes me that so many on this site, who refer to themselves as Atheists--and try to present themselves as educated--refer to him as Jesus "Christ" rather than Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Christ" is taken from the Greek. It means "Messiah." Messianic prophecy runs through the books of the prophets, which I understand that the Jews still accept today.
If I were an atheist, which I am not, I would start exclusively referring to Him as Jesus of Nazareth.
I know a local Jewish Rabbi--very kind man. He refers to Him as Jesus of Nazareth. But that's because the rabbi knows what the word Christ actually means.
I assume that Neal's denial of the existence of Jesus was in fact a denial of the existence of "the Christ". Denying the existence of Jesus, the Nazarene, is like denying the existence of Siddartha Gautama. It's just ignorant; and, I don't think Neal is that ignorant. Could be wrong, though. And I think Neal was joking, especially when I combine his comment with his choice/added above.
Likewise, DingleDUNG's centurion comment makes a lot of sense if you don't believe He was the Messiah, too. If I didn't believe Him to be the Messiah, I would probably go for that explanation.
I try not to hold my feelings on my shirt sleeve on this issue. He doesn't need me to defend Him, and it would be foolish for me to deny my belief in Him either.
By the way, are the Jews still waiting for the "Messiah" (or Christ) to arrive on earth? I've never thought to ask any yet, but there is the question. Maybe Fiddle can answer that last question for me, if he can get his head to stop spinning. 
Contragrain: no, I wasn't joking. I will state plainly my position that Jesus, at least as depicted in the New Testament, didn't exist. If for no other reason, there's the fact that virtually every Biblical claim made about him - his birth on Dec. 25 to a virgin, curing diseases with one touch, gathering 12 disciples, walking on water, getting suspended from some cross or tree, and rising bodily from death - in short, ALL the standard Jesus stuff - was also said of at least 16 earlier pagan man-gods. The similarities in the biographies of Mithras, Ra, Zoroaster and at least a dozen others are so strikingly similar to Jesus' "me too" act as to prove that the latter, written hundreds or thousands of years later, is a forgery and a plagiarism.
What of a merely historical Jesus? A wise, good, kind - yet entirely mortal - man whose fan club made miraculous claims for him just to match the claims of competing religions? Such a Jesus is at least possible. Stripped of its supernatural elemnts the basic Jesus story is this: a man becoming popular by preaching his unconventional religious beliefs, so enrages the professional clergy that they use their influence with the government to have him executed.
Why I find that story so plausible is that it's happened so many times, to so many people, done through history. And was happening until relatively recently. Consider that Martin Luther was not the first Protestant, just the first to avoid being executed for it.
And in Muslim countries, that story is STILL happening.
So I think THAT much of the Jesus story was true. That, and nothing else.
At this point it's probably the Christians who will object, and say something like: "If you don't believe in Jesus as Christ, Lord, and Messiah, what would be the use in believing in him at all?" What, indeed? That's my point exactly.
As to your last point: yes, the Jews are indeed still waiting for their Messiah to arrive, as opposed to Christians, who think he DID arrive 2006 years ago. And the Jews aren't awaiting the Christ, becuse they entirely reject that whole concept. I guess you could say the Jewish view of Jesus is similar to my own: they think he was only a mortal man. I say yes, he was, IF he ever existed at all.
Contragrain: I forgot one other objection I wanted to make to your post. "Christ" does not mean "Messiah"; rather, Christ is ancient Greek for "the annointed one", which is a different claim altogether. That's why it's perfectly consistent for Jews to believe in the Messiah but not in the Christ.
Very interesting, and while I believe that the Neanderthals existed, I'm not too sure about any Neal_Anderthal, did you exist at one time or is that made up too? (",)
Very Interesting, Neal. And I'm really ok with your skepticism or downright disbelief...it is quite an in-credible story; isn't it?
(the hyphenation of in-credible was deliberate, and placed for affect, I'm sure you caught it)
It really is a matter of semantics. To me, "Anointed One" is synonymous with "Messiah." It may be a slightly different connotation, but, anytime you change from one language to another you have different nuances.
I believe Zoroastrianism is the world's oldest Religion, is it not? Are there practicing Zoroastrians today?
What puzzles me, is why so many of the first century Christians were willing to submit themselves to torture and death rather than recant "a lie." Very puzzling. They would have everything to gain, and nothing to lose if they just said, "hey, he didn't resurrect, I didn't really see Him, etc." But, no, they held to their story to the bitter end. Talk about disenfranchised. sheez!
Ironically, even Saul of Tarsus (or St. Paul for believers) acknowledged or anticipated your argument 1900+ years ago, when he wrote to the Corinthians:
"for if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."
note--I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me, a paraphrase might sound like, 'if there is no resurrection, then we are the biggest fools of all.' You know what? I think he believed it. And I believe it. He (Saul/Paul) died for that belief. I hope I never have to.
I appreciated where Ken was coming from; but, unlike like Ken, though, I believe in you, too, Neanderthal Man! 
And I sign off,
your foolish friend.
You're probably not a neanderthal, though. And I don't think you claimed to be. Did you?
Contragrain: Maybe the terms "messiah" and "Christ" are synonymous to you, but they are not to everyone. Certainly not to the Jews, which is my only point on this issue. To Jews, "Christ" means God in human form, a heresy to them, which is why they feel justified in rejecting the term even as they accept "messiah".
You observe that St. Paul and many other Christians believed that Jesus was Christ and his Resurrection saved us from sin? And they believed it so strongly that they were willing to die for it? Yes, they did.
So what? As Oscar Wilde noted: "A thing is not necessarily true just because a man dies for it." Millions of people have willingly and eagerly died for all sorts of beliefs which neverless turned out to be false and worthless - Communism, Naziism and fundamentalist Islam to name just 3 recent ones.
Zoroastrianism is probably the oldest existing religion; I think it still has a few thousand believers. Almost certainly it is not the oldest religion. My namesakes, the Neanderthals, buried their dead with elaborate rituals, placing food, clothing and weapons in their graves, just as the Egyptians would do hundreds of centuries later. And oviously for the same reason; since they decedent needed these things in life, he'd need them in the presumed afterlife. This was religion, if the word has any meaning. Certainly our present religions are, at their core, attempts to cope with death by denying its finality.
Which brings me around to your last question. Yes, I have taken my name to defend the reputation of the Neanderthals. Unjustly stereotyped as brutes, they were only that to the extent needed to survive in their brutal environment. The Neanderthals were a gentle people as much as they could be, apparently inventing music and art. And religion, as noted above. But they were VERY primitive, so I can certainly forgive them for the latter.
Contragrain: Maybe the terms "messiah" and "Christ" are synonymous to you, but they are not to everyone. Certainly not to the Jews, which is my only point on this issue. To Jews, "Christ" means God in human form, a heresy to them, which is why they feel justified in rejecting the term even as they accept "messiah".
You observe that St. Paul and many other Christians believed that Jesus was Christ and his Resurrection saved us from sin? And they believed it so strongly that they were willing to die for it? Yes, they did.
So what? As Oscar Wilde noted: "A thing is not necessarily true just because a man dies for it." Millions of people have willingly and eagerly died for all sorts of beliefs which neverless turned out to be false and worthless - Communism, Naziism and fundamentalist Islam to name just 3 recent ones.
Zoroastrianism is probably the oldest existing religion; I think it still has a few thousand believers. Almost certainly it is not the oldest religion. My namesakes, the Neanderthals, buried their dead with elaborate rituals, placing food, clothing and weapons in their graves, just as the Egyptians would do hundreds of centuries later. And oviously for the same reason; since they decedent needed these things in life, he'd need them in the presumed afterlife. This was religion, if the word has any meaning. Certainly our present religions are, at their core, attempts to cope with death by denying its finality.
Which brings me around to your last question. Yes, I have taken my name to defend the reputation of the Neanderthals. Unjustly stereotyped as brutes, they were only that to the extent needed to survive in their brutal environment. The Neanderthals were a gentle people as much as they could be, apparently inventing music and art. And religion, as noted above. But they were VERY primitive, so I can certainly forgive them for the latter.
Contragrain: Maybe the terms "messiah" and "Christ" are synonymous to you, but they are not to everyone. Certainly not to the Jews, which is my only point on this issue. To Jews, "Christ" means God in human form, a heresy to them, which is why they feel justified in rejecting the term even as they accept "messiah".
You observe that St. Paul and many other Christians believed that Jesus was Christ and his Resurrection saved us from sin? And they believed it so strongly that they were willing to die for it? Yes, they did.
So what? As Oscar Wilde noted: "A thing is not necessarily true just because a man dies for it." Millions of people have willingly and eagerly died for all sorts of beliefs which neverless turned out to be false and worthless - Communism, Naziism and fundamentalist Islam to name just 3 recent ones.
Zoroastrianism is probably the oldest existing religion; I think it still has a few thousand believers. Almost certainly it is not the oldest religion. My namesakes, the Neanderthals, buried their dead with elaborate rituals, placing food, clothing and weapons in their graves, just as the Egyptians would do hundreds of centuries later. And oviously for the same reason; since they decedent needed these things in life, he'd need them in the presumed afterlife. This was religion, if the word has any meaning. Certainly our present religions are, at their core, attempts to cope with death by denying its finality.
Which brings me around to your last question. Yes, I have taken my name to defend the reputation of the Neanderthals. Unjustly stereotyped as brutes, they were only that to the extent needed to survive in their brutal environment. The Neanderthals were a gentle people as much as they could be, apparently inventing music and art. And religion, as noted above. But they were VERY primitive, so I can certainly forgive them for the latter.
Contragrain: Maybe the terms "messiah" and "Christ" are synonymous to you, but they are not to everyone. Certainly not to the Jews, which is my only point. To Jews, "Christ" means God in human form, a heresy to them, which is why they feel justified in rejecting the term even as they accept "messiah".
You observe that St. Paul and many other Christians believed that Jesus was Christ and his Resurrection saved us from sin? And they believed it so strongly that they were willing to die for it? Yes, they did.
So what? As Oscar Wilde noted: "A thing is not necessarily true just because a man dies for it." Millions of people have willingly and eagerly died for all sorts of beliefs which neverless turned out to be false and worthless - Communism, Naziism and fundamentalist Islam to name just 3 recent ones.
Zoroastrianism is probably the oldest existing religion; I think it still has a few thousand believers. Almost certainly it is not the oldest religion. My namesakes, the Neanderthals, buried their dead with elaborate rituals, placing food, clothing and weapons in their graves, just as the Egyptians would do hundreds of centuries later. And oviously for the same reason; since they decedent needed these things in life, he'd need them in the presumed afterlife. This was religion, if the word has any meaning. Certainly our present religions are, at their core, attempts to cope with death by denying its finality.
Which brings me around to your last question. Yes, I have taken my name to defend the reputation of the Neanderthals. Unjustly stereotyped as brutes, they were only that to the extent needed to survive in their brutal environment. The Neanderthals were a gentle people as much as they could be, apparently inventing music and art. And religion, as noted above. But they were VERY primitive, so I can certainly forgive them for the latter.
^It wasn't my idea to post this comment multiple times. B&W had a software glitch, which seems to be happening with alarming frequency of late. I regret this happened.
While Zoroastrianism in it's present day form, is probably the world's oldest monotheistic faith, Hinduism predates it by a few thousand years and it has strong claims as the worlds oldest religion, although followers of Wicca and Shamanism will claim that there's is even older.
Personally I would argue that Paganism is the world's oldest religion, if indeed it can even be described as one, probably as old as when man's brain evolved into self-awareness and when he first questioned his mortal origions and purpose in life.
Interesting footnote -
Freddy Mercury, the late great lead singer with rock supergroup Queen was a Zoroastrian.
Neal,
If it had been your idea to repost, the system wouldn't have let you. Definitely a systemic glitch.
The term Christian wasn't used until the book of Acts. It was a derrogatory name they gave to the men and women following Christ! You can find it here: Acts 11:26
The reason they called them that was because they didn't belive Jesus was God. Jesus really messed up the Jewish culture and faith and therefore they wanted nothing to do with them. However, Jesus died for both the Jew and the gentile. So, it doesn't matter what you call me, I am still His daughter! We are all in His extended family!
|
|
