What is "real" Christianity?
Online I would like to know once and for all precisely what "judeo-christian" means. The phrase "judeo-christian values" is bandied about ever and anon, with such implied objectivity, that one presumes to end (and win) any discussion by merely mentioning it. Yet when I examine the phrase, it is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus). Why are they then cobbled together in this catch-phrase? Because they share a common tradition? Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition. Would george bush sound less credible should he say "judeo-christian-islamic"? judaism and islam are in agreement that jesus was not divine. christianity and islam are in agreement that jesus was a man of god. So how do we settle on "judeo-christian"?
Examining further, we see that judaism and christianity are decidedly heterodox. There are orthodox jews, conservative jews, reform jews, hasidic. There are jews who believe the book of genesis is historical, and that Israel is ordained by divine right. Yet there are also gay and atheist synagogues.
"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.
So what is "judeo-", what is "christian", and what is "judeo-christian". I simply feel that when one uses the phrase, one seeks to tap the support of all to whom that phrase applies, which cuts fairly wide in its scope. If we define the particulars, and settle on what exactly values the phrase indicates, the scope of that phrase might shrink drastically. We would at least have greater clarity in our discussions and that would be a good thing.
maybe you should direct this question to stmichael?
I'd like to revisit this topic as I've seen the "No True Scotsman" fallacy popping up of late in the threads. In one instance,seen in this thread, a contributor claims that he knows his interpretation of the scriptures is correct because of "the holy spirit and a relationship with God". If "a relationship with god" is attainable, and therefrom a proper interpretation of the bible, why have we not settled on one correct christian denomination, but rather have so many in operation? A christian might have greater credibility if there were not so many other self-professed christians who disagree with him.
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
I'm not surprised that you're getting no help on this one, z.
One of the reasons I think many theists are actually full of shit as opposed to completely deluded is that they seem perfectly capable of avoiding select arguments... like this one.
Even the most indoctrinated person can see the danger in espousing "The One True Scotsman... err.. Christian" or defining Judeo-Christianity. As soon as one thing is definitely true, it is open to definite rebuttal.
My other least favorite defense, "Defense by Redefinition" is only possible with Christianity so long as there's wiggle room. Defining it clearly would be, well... pretty stupid, when the best defense is being able to say, "it's not like that definition of the word, it's like the other definition, the one that isn't defined."
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Yeah, I guess it was a vain expectation someone would have the ballz to take it on. I figured one should be obliged to answer, since they so freely use the term "christianity", without any specification.
Oh well, I tried. History should treat me kindly.
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
I don't know if there's such a thing as "real christianity". Christianity changes from generation to generation, so it's a tough call.
I've never met or heard of a real christian. Just a lot of people who claim to be. Considering that a christian must follow the bible absolutely to be a christian, and that the bible contradicts itself on a few seperate points, it is literally impossible to be a real christian.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God.
Christianity is SUPPOSED to be a large collective of well to do people, and people who do good things.
What Christianity REALLY is is a bunch of fucked up lethargic half obese FOX NEWS channel watching rejects of society with nothing better to do except complain about how fat they are and how Gore is pro choice which means he supports abortion and how Bush is a good god faring man so he's worth my vote because I go to church on sunday even though I cheat on my hubby or spouse with the neighbors dog or goat or whatever I'm feeling up to on any paricular day.
*cough*
...sorry.
- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."
Is that reason enough to endorse its absconsion?
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
"Judeo-Christian" is probably intended to refer to the basic agreements between the two religions: God, the basic story of creation (be it symbolic or literal), and the figures in the Biblical Old Testament (or the Jewish Tanakh).
The difference begins at Jesus Christ, or properly after his ascension and what is called the "Great Commission" to spread the gospel. Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek, the language the New Testament was written in). Jesus Christ did not simply come to spread some good teachings, he fulfilled the Jewish law (that is, the laws brought by Moses from God).
That means obligation to the law is relinquished. The Mosaic Law was called a "covenant," a promise. We are now under a new covenant. It is not the first time God has reportedly made new covenants, either. The new promise is basically that God has personally sacrificed himself for our forgiveness, done because we are unable to do it for ourselves.
Islam doesn't reasonably fit into this scheme because the Qu'ran is reportedly the "true" Bible, as the previous ones have been corrupted with time. There are numerous differences between the two, the earliest of which might be that Ishmael was the chosen son of Abraham instead of Isaac. That would mean the racial and religious descendants are completely different between Jews and Islamics.
Truthfully, Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are. The term undoubtedly originates with Christians not wanting to exclude Jews, since Christian theology does not exclude Jews from God's new covenant.
Hope that at least helps to answer your question!
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Thank you for responding.
I will first point out that Islam does share the "basic agreements" you listed in regard to god, creation, etc. As far as Islam's stance on the corrupt texts: It holds that the Torah, the Psalms, and jesus' teachings (Injil) were in fact correct when originally imparted by god - and it was their corruption over time that made the provision of the qu'ran necessary.
By your statement that "Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are", are you asserting that the term judeo-christian is inappropriate, or ought still to be used?
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
To say "jesus was a jew" is too general. Even in the 1st century (the presumed time of jesus' existence), there were multiple jewish theologies in operation (Essenes, Pharisess, Sadducees, to name a few), just as there are multiple jewish denominations today. Only 1/4 of the jews at the time believed in the messianic prophecy. You cannot really "lump together" Judaism itself, much less add on a christian lump.
I don't find it quite clear. What does it mean to be a jew?
I said that islam parttakes of the same tradition. It acknowledges the same prophets (abraham, moses, solomon), only treating jesus as another prophet. As far as the "holy books", islam treats the torah, the psalms and the injil as holy books alongside the qu'ran.
And you are perhaps misguided in saying "the christian holy book contains the jewish holy book". I'm sure you're aware, that the Talmud, for instance, is not "contained" in the bible.
Please give citations.
Islam and judaism are in agreement that jesus was not divine, and therefore in disagreement with christianity. islam and christianity are in agreement that jesus was a man of god, and therefore in disagreement with judaism. I'm not certain why your comparison of the qu'ran being written by one man to the multiple authors of the bible should suffice to invalidate it.
You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what judaism is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of judaism. To simply retort "the OT" ignores that point entirely. Which denomination is reading the OT correctly?
You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what christianity is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of christianity. To simply retort "the NT" ignores that point entirely. What denomination is reading the NT correctly?
Islam represents just such a society.
Then we should perhaps discard its use.
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
The Dinner Table 5.51
The Cattle 6.146
The Immunity 9.30
The Cow 2.120
The Family of Imran 3.67
Yes, Christianity is in disagreement with present day Judaism, but I would argue that the term judeo-christian only encompasses Jewish belief up to the NT.
So, sugarfree, it is safe for me to say you're a Lutheran? After all, Christian is Christian, and Jew is Jew, right?
What about Jehovah's Witness? Last time I checked, they use the Bible and believe in Jesus. So you're a Jehovah's Witness.
Ok, sugarfree. You're right. It's overanalyzed. You believe that 144,000 people are going to heaven, and that's it. It's ok for me to say this because any old Bible based theology will work. Analysis for truth is a bad thing. Who cares whether it's what you believe or not. I'm not interested in knowing the truth, because it's enough that you believe in the Bible.
You think? You mean by looking at the texts, you see similarities, and it occurs to you that the later writer (Muhammed) borrowed from the earlier writers? What a profound revelation you've had! I wonder why it never occurred to you that other writers (NT) might have borrowed from previous writers (OT). Seems obvious to me. The puzzle is why they didn't do a better job of matching them... Why would that be, I wonder...
Damn good question, you Jehovah's Witness, you! Good thing you're not one of those Catholics who's going to burn in hell for praying to Mary...
That's a rotten analogy. We're talking about authorship, not translation.
So, logically, the bible would be more trustworthy if ten or twelve people had authored each book of the bible, since the original point you were trying to refute dealt with the bible having many books with different authors.
You need someone to teach you how to make a proper analogy.
I can't decide if you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether you just can't see the point. Sugarfree, if everyone has to make the decision for themselves, then there's no right answer. Is there an objectively true version? If so, what is it? How do you know? If you know "in your heart," how is it objective, since everyone else knows in their heart, too? Are you better than them?
That's why it's ok for me to call you a JW.
Right. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, and you better not say they're fringe left, or I'll know you're just ignorant.
So your church doesn't let women speak in church, right? The NT objectively says women should not speak in church.
Hypocrite.
Ok. Live up to your words! Women should shut the hell up in church.
Excellent observation. They are human inventions.
Again, excellent observation!
My brain tells me, after thoroughly reading the OT, NT, and gads of history, that the bible, like the talmud, torah, koran, and every other god-book ever written, is a man-made entity, describing a made up fantasy sky daddy, who happens, in the case of Judeo-Christianity, to be a petulant narcissist who really loves blood.
Why do you believe it? Because you feel it in your heart?
Or... brain... which was it again that you're supposed to use?
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
But it very clearly said so in the NT that women shouldn't speak in church. Right here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
So not only is Paul letting people know that women shouldn't speak in church, but that Jesus commands that women not speak in church.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
I think the term is inappropriate as it is applied to religious doctrines. One could refer to the "Judeo-Christio-Islamic God" and be correct, as all three acknowledge they refer to the same God. You could also use the term demographically, if for some reason the demographic you were studying should lump all three together. Other than that, it seems an over-generalization to me.
And your clarification on the Islamic belief of the Qu'ran's origins is accurate, thank you.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
...and here I thought that the words of your God were supposed to be timeless/eternal.
Wow, sugarfree. You managed to produce non-answers to every single point I made. All that writing, and not one rebuttal.
Actually, sugar, I wasn't playing mind games with you about the JWs. I was using your logic on you to show you how absurd your ideas are. The exact same logic you use to flippantly dismiss different sects of Judaism is used against you to justify any and all sects that use the Bible.
Since they are all interchangable, according to your logic, then it is quite fair for me to assume you believe what the JW's believe. In fact, I could mix and match, and it would be ok, because it's not important. It would be overanalyzing.
Don't you see, sugarfree? If I use your method of approaching Judaism, I can say that you said all those things, even though you didn't. That's why your method is flawed. This is a common technique in logic, by the way. You can refute bad logic by taking it to its normal conclusion. When the conclusion and reality don't match, you know your logic was bad.
Sugarfree, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this. Not only have I studied the bible thoroughly, not only have I read more apologetics than most Christians, I also have studied logic, argument, and rhetoric, so I can say this as somewhat of an authority: You need to learn the difference between naysaying and argument.
What you have done is simply say, "No, hamby, you're wrong."
Well, that's just not very convincing. What I did was use a valid logical construct to prove your logic to be flawed. If you wish to continue the discussion, you'll have to show me where I made a logical error. If you can't do that, then my point stands unrefuted.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Some christians believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven at the time of the rapture. You said that christian denominations are compatible, and you said you were a christian. Therefore, as a christian, you do accept the aforementioned christian belief. How could you have possibly missed that?
And at what point does fruitful analysis become over-analysis? At the point your beliefs fail to hold up to scrutiny?
Do some christians not consider muslims infidels? Do some christians not consider jews infidels for having rejected their messiah? Do not some christians consider other christians infidels? (Recall Martin Luther's nickname for the pope, if you will.)
You accused me of "overanalysis". Who hath cast the first stone?
We have been seeking and poring over and considering for 2,000 years. As the 30,000+ different denominations of christianity would attest, this clarity is yet to arrive.
Very well. What is the christian stance on Genesis - historical truth, or symbolic? What is the christian stance on the eucharist -- does bread and wine actually turn into jesus' flesh & blood, or is it only ceremonial? What is the christian stance on the pope? On the trinity? On praying to Mary? On birth control? On homosexuality (bear in mind the recent vote by episcopalian christians)? On speaking in tongues?