Converted because of RF

[SalixIncendium]

Wow. Your age surprised me.

Not me. I don't see wisdom in any way associated with chronological age. I've known those that are very wise at a very young age (even children) and those that have all the wisdom of an idiot child at an advanced age.

This is why I've always thought that while intellect is a inherent to the subtle body, wisdom is inherent to the causal body.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That would make sense, as one of the more attractive features of Judaism is that, so far as I am aware, it doesn't proselytise.

Which raises an interesting point. Those of us that were raised in proselytising religions, such as Christianity, were always exhorted to go and persuade others. I always felt the best way to do that was probably by NOT trying to persuade, but just by letting one's own religion seem to be an attractive thing, followed by normal people.

If only we could get you to spread this in the "Why Do Jews reject [fill in the blank]" threads. You are a winner in my book.

 

[exchemist]

If only we could get you to spread this in the "Why Do Jews reject [fill in the blank]" threads. You are a winner in my book.

Yes, I've seen those threads and they make me cringe. But then I was brought up Catholic, rather than as one of these ghastly "born-again" Baptist types.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not me. I don't see wisdom in any way associated with chronological age. I've known those that are very wise at a very young age (even children) and those that have all the wisdom of an idiot child at an advanced age.

This is why I've always thought that while intellect is a inherent to the subtle body, wisdom is inherent to the causal body.

You're correct, of course. Still, the quality of his posts are that of a well read scholar.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thinking about the question posed in the OP more deeply, I'm personally well acquainted with only four RF'ers who have substantially changed their religious beliefs down the years while being on the forum.

@Rival herself, obviously, having converted to Noahidism / on a pathway towards Judaism from Christianity (and a few other faiths in-between, her longest being Zoroastrianism but also briefer forays into the likes of paganism, atheism and Luciferianism), @Treks who has gone from being a neo-pagan, then almost a decade of "on-off" affiliation with Sikhism (in which she struggled to relate to the religion culturally and flirted with Unitarian Universalism) but is now a convinced Protestant Christian, @metis who was a proselyte reform Jew with Buddhist tendencies when I first met him but has since converted to Catholicism and also @Conscious thoughts who has gone from Falun Gong (if I recall rightly) to Islam and Sufism.

I'm not sure I know of any others beyond those four, at least with whom I'm very well acquainted.

Such "paradigm shifts" in worldview would seem to be rare things, overall.

Good memory about folks you've dialogued with.

'While being on the forum' is different than 'because of the forum' though.

 

[RabbiO]

Matthew 23:13-15...

So how do Jesus’ words fit if the Jews did not proselytise?

Jews were not adverse to proselytizing, but that effort ceased almost 2000 years ago. It became a capital crime to proselytize for Judaism and it became a capital crime for a person to convert to Judaism. That was a significant factor.

 

[Vouthon]

Jews were not adverse to proselytizing, but that effort ceased almost 2000 years ago. It became a capital crime to proselytize for Judaism and it became a capital crime for a person to convert to Judaism. That was a significant factor.

Indeed, I believe it was likely just after the time of Jesus in the first century CE (you may correct me on this Rabbi) that the sages began formalizing the Jewish opposition to proselytism in response to Roman imperial suppression in the aftermath of the Jewish revolts.

Hence the reason why Jesus - living just at that liminal point, the period immediately preceding the Jewish revolts and Roman suppressive actions - could still accuse other Jewish groups of being aggressive proselytizers (he was speaking as a Jew, of course, this was an intra-religious critique).

I'm thinking, in particular, of the independent Judean state's annexation of Idumaea into the Jewish kingdom around 110 BCE under King John Hyrcanus and the forced conversion of its subject people to Judaism, as the ancient historian Josephus informs us in Ant. xiii, 9:1:


Hasmonean dynasty - Wikipedia

In 110 BCE, John Hyrcanus carried out the first military conquests of the newly independent Hasmonean kingdom, raising a mercenary army to capture Madaba and Schechem, significantly increasing his regional influence.[66][67]

Hyrcanus conquered Transjordan, Samaria,[68] and Idumea (also known as Edom), and forced Idumeans to convert to Judaism:


Hyrcanus ... subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.[69]​

Also, the earlier conquest of Galilee and the conversion of its native people the Itureans to Judaism:


Aristobulus I - Wikipedia

Aristobulus had went to war against the Ituraeans and taken territory from them. The conquered Ituraeans and the inhabitants had to accept Jewish law and be circumcised if they wanted to remain in their land.[7] The Ituraeans were an Arab tribe that expanded their settlement from the Lebanese Beq'a to the Golan and Mount Hermon in the second century BCE after the collapse of the Seleucid Empire.[9] They are first mentioned in Josephus's Antiquities 13.319 during Aristobulus I's conquest where Josephus writes, "he brought over to them a portion of the Ituraean nation".[7]

Most scholars assume the Ituraean territory to be northern Galilee​

This kind of 'expansionist' Judaism seems to have died out with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D and finally with the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 CE) and ever since, as you note, it has not been a missionary faith at all like Islam or Christianity but rather a religion staunchly unconcerned with influencing and forcing its beliefs upon other peoples, which is highly commendable.

 

[Treks]

Thinking about the question posed in the OP more deeply, I'm personally well acquainted with only four RF'ers who have substantially changed their religious beliefs down the years while being on the forum.

@Rival herself, obviously, having converted to Noahidism / on a pathway towards Judaism from Christianity (and a few other faiths in-between, her longest being Zoroastrianism but also briefer forays into the likes of paganism, atheism and Luciferianism), @Treks who has gone from being a neo-pagan, then almost a decade of "on-off" affiliation with Sikhism (in which she struggled to relate to the religion culturally and flirted with Unitarian Universalism) but is now a convinced Protestant Christian, @metis who was a proselyte reform Jew with Buddhist tendencies when I first met him but has since converted to Catholicism and also @Conscious thoughts who has gone from Falun Gong (if I recall rightly) to Islam and Sufism.

I'm not sure I know of any others beyond those four, at least with whom I'm very well acquainted.

Such "paradigm shifts" in worldview would seem to be rare things, overall.

Just to clarify, although I signed up to RF a long time ago, and my beliefs have certainly changed (over the course of 20 years), I would definitely not say that the forum has been responsible for any of those changes.

 

[Vouthon]

Just to clarify, although I signed up to RF a long time ago, and my beliefs have certainly changed (over the course of 20 years), I would definitely not say that the forum has been responsible for any of those changes.

Indeed, I never thought so either @Treks, I just had you in mind as one of the few RF'ers I know who has actually changed religious worldview quite substantially over the years of being a poster (i.e. from a Dharmic to Abrahamic faith perspective)

Its not a very common thing, in my experience.

Thanks for clarifying though!

 

[janesix]

I'm 73 years old. I've spent a lifetime REALLY LOOKING at this question, along with many other philosophical questions. And the answer has ALWAYS been, based on any real correlation between the world I know, and the world described by those who think there are gods -- that there ain't any.

You yourself, in another post, admitted you can't show me God, because you're still looking. Why are you looking for God? Why not look for anything else you've never had any evidence? Is it because you think you are supposed to?

I am looking because I am compelled to.

 

[metis]

Thinking about the question posed in the OP more deeply, I'm personally well acquainted with only four RF'ers who have substantially changed their religious beliefs down the years while being on the forum.

@Rival herself, obviously, having converted to Noahidism / on a pathway towards Judaism from Christianity (and a few other faiths in-between, her longest being Zoroastrianism but also briefer forays into the likes of paganism, atheism and Luciferianism), @Treks who has gone from being a neo-pagan, then almost a decade of "on-off" affiliation with Sikhism (in which she struggled to relate to the religion culturally and flirted with Unitarian Universalism) but is now a convinced Protestant Christian, @metis who was a proselyte reform Jew with Buddhist tendencies when I first met him but has since converted to Catholicism and also @Conscious thoughts who has gone from Falun Gong (if I recall rightly) to Islam and Sufism.

I'm not sure I know of any others beyond those four, at least with whom I'm very well acquainted.

Such "paradigm shifts" in worldview would seem to be rare things, overall.

The above reminds me of this: "If you have a clock, you know exactly what time it is; but if you have many clocks, you'll never be sure exactly what time it is".

My point is that the major religions especially have had over a thousand years to develop, including formulating logical positions based on their basic premises. Thus, if one studies these religions over time, it is logical that one may sway this way or that way based on contemplating new understandings and/or new experiences.

A classic example, imo, is Joseph Campbell, who probably knew more about the world religions than anyone on this planet, and he was brought up Christian but died Hindu. I seriously believe every theist on this planet should read "The Power of Myth": The Power of Myth - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

Atheism isn't the claim that there is no god, it's simply a lack of belief that there is a god.

Is this lack of belief a conscious choice?
For example, no person is born believing in God, which means that every person is born with a lack of belief in God.
So does one have to consciously lack belief in God, to be Atheist?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is this lack of belief a conscious choice?
For example, no person is born believing in God, which means that every person is born with a lack of belief in God.
So does one have to consciously lack belief in God, to be Atheist?

I can't consciously make a choice to believe or to disbelieve anything of significance. My belief or lack thereof for any claim is based entirely upon the verifiable evidence available for the claim. If the evidence presented for a claim isn't sufficient for me to warrant belief I can't just consciously choose to believe it. I suppose I could pretend to believe it, but of course that wouldn't be genuine belief.

For instance, if you were to tell me that you own a dog, I would be more than willing to believe your claim without any verifiable evidence, because it's not a significant claim. I know plenty of people who own dogs and I have owned a dog myself in the past, so it's easy enough for me to accept your claim without any actual evidence. However if you were to tell me that you own a talking dog who can accurately pick the lotto numbers a week in advance, I am not going to be able to believe your claim without some sort of verifiable evidence. And there's absolutely no way that I could just consciously choose to believe you without such evidence.

So let's turn it around. I claim to own a talking dog who accurately picks the lotto numbers a week in advance. If you lack a belief in my claim is it because you haven't been presented with any convincing evidence that my claim is true, or is it because you've made a conscious choice to lack a belief in my talking/lotto predicting dog?

 

[nPeace]

I can't consciously make a choice to believe or to disbelieve anything of significance. My belief or lack thereof for any claim is based entirely upon the verifiable evidence available for the claim. If the evidence presented for a claim isn't sufficient for me to warrant belief I can't just consciously choose to believe it. I suppose I could pretend to believe it, but of course that wouldn't be genuine belief.

For instance, if you were to tell me that you own a dog, I would be more than willing to believe your claim without any verifiable evidence, because it's not a significant claim. I know plenty of people who own dogs and I have owned a dog myself in the past, so it's easy enough for me to accept your claim without any actual evidence. However if you were to tell me that you own a talking dog who can accurately pick the lotto numbers a week in advance, I am not going to be able to believe your claim without some sort of verifiable evidence. And there's absolutely no way that I could just consciously choose to believe you without such evidence.

So let's turn it around. I claim to own a talking dog who accurately picks the lotto numbers a week in advance. If you lack a belief in my claim is it because you haven't been presented with any convincing evidence that my claim is true, or is it because you've made a conscious choice to lack a belief in my talking/lotto predicting dog?

I'm only asking if all babies are Atheists since they lack belief in God, because you defined Atheist as lacking belief in God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Staff here actively discourage any proselytizing through moderation (edits, deletions, warnings and restrictions). That goes for all including atheists. There are strict limits that require that religious related statements be put forward as opinions and not facts as well as denunciations of religious beliefs from all directions.

We have differing understandings of what constitutes proselytising, but that's fine. Although I've been tempted to leave many times because of it, I've taken the choice to ignore people and posts that I personally consider excessive.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm only asking if all babies are Atheists since they lack belief in God, because you defined Atheist as lacking belief in God.

You asked if lack of belief was a conscious choice and that's the question I answered.

Anyone who lacks a belief in any god or gods is an atheist. By stating that babies lack a belief in god, you've answered your own question. Their lack of belief - by definition - makes them atheists

 

[Brickjectivity]

We have differing understandings of what constitutes proselytising, but that's fine. Although I've been tempted to leave many times because of it, I've taken the choice to ignore people and posts that I personally consider excessive.

I think that our definition is based on ease of decision-making. The less we have to think the more fair we can be, but this can have less than intelligent results.

 

[Mister Emu]

Over my 16 years on the Forum, I have converted from a warm, loving optimist about human nature to a bitter, defeated cynic about it. Does that count?

All my hard work paying off.

Does intra-faith conversion count? I became a Catholic, from S. Baptist, supported in large part by the discussions I had on this site with several intelligent, compassionate fellows.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Atheism isn't the claim that there is no god, it's simply a lack of belief that there is a god.

... and since a 'lack of belief' can't be proven then it is the exercise of faith in the lack of proof that God can Not be proven. (?)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And we worship by listening to our prophets Richard Dawkins sermons on YouTube, observe our religious diet (eating babies) and at least those living in the US congregate every year to celebrate Ark Encounter Protest.

In Scripture, No cannibalism in Scripture - 2 Kings 6:29-30 - No children in the fire to devour them - Jeremiah 32:34-35; Ezekiel 23:36-37