-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The most ANNOYING misconception about YOUR faith?
- Thread starter Djamila
- Start date
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Although agnosticism isn't a faith, I would like to say that the thing that annoys me most is having to deal with people that intentionally confuse agnosticism with atheism.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
I would think that the most annoying misconception about agnosticism is the belief that it's wishy-washy. Many people don't understand that it's not an inability to take a stand on the existence of God, but rather a definitive position on the impossibility of really knowing.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
People think i have a million gazillion quatrillion gods.
I never quite got this point clear. It is my understanding that a Sanatana Dharmi (if you don't mind me calling you so) does technically speaking have a wide range of options far as Deities and Avatars go, but once he chooses a specific Tradition and/or Guru (which he simply doesn't change often, if at all) his options become far more restricted.
I'm sure I'm missing something important here. Would you please comment and correct?
Thanks!
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
LOL - you are correct, Lilithu. There is that, also.
A misconception that bothers me is not a misconception about my personal faith, but rather a misconception about faith itself.
The same world that values "quickness and ease" over quality, encourages a form of "drive by religion" where we engage in various counterfeits of true faith. A superficial acceptance of a religious tradition is often perceived as equivalent to a firm faith in a deeply held conviction. Aggressive defense of religious traditions poorly understood and poorly lived often replaces the quiet commitment of living life consistent with deeply pondered beliefs. We find ourselves defending mere traditions (rather than convictions) not merely with debate, but more importantly (and with far more success) with our psyche.
Lazy societal trends towards abandonment of civic responsibilities create a society that seek lazy religions which forsake moral responsibilities. In such a society, religious values become unbalanced. In an ironic "religious self-centeredness", we may concentrate so much on what our doctrinal wants are, that we sometimes loose sight of our doctrinal needs.
We end up with anemic religions full of people who cling to them out of fear of facing the terrible question: "What are we to believe if what we have been taught is not true?". We want to avoid the difficult discomfort of being without a firm belief system and adopt pre-packaged traditions rather than ask ourselves what we really are to believe.
Once adopting traditions rather than convictions, we then WANT to feel our traditions are as valuable and as deeply felt as our deep convictions. We want our traditions NOT to be inconsistent or upset by facts and truth contrary to these beliefs. We WANT to believe that current levels of understanding are correct. And, our psyche has ways of giving us what we want.
Look at the discussions. Out of hundreds of discussions, how many people give in and admit that someone else is correct and then progress in their knowledge? Such adjustments in belief are very rare, even among christians who should be progressing in their understanding; abandoning an error here, and accepting a truth there. Instead, we often spend our time and effort, building "factual fortresses" around our present understanding and present beliefs in the hope of keeping them safe FROM change.
Even when one reads a post contrary to our beliefs, but which is so strong in it’s logic and so credible in it’s fact that it forces us to make a decision to either believe in it or feel dishonest with ourselves, still, instead of progressing, we take another option and bail out and stop the discussion at that point. Instead of considering the logic and fact, we mentally turn out the lights; go to bed; and dream of our prior dogma.
A Muslim asked a Christian what the Christian would do if somehow it could be proven to the Christian that Islam was correct; that Jesus was NOT anything other than a prophet (but not the son of God). The obvious answer was so repulsive to the Christian that he would not answer, NOT because there was no answer, but because the answer WAS repulsive to him. Interestingly, the question was mirrored back to the muslim regarding what if Jesus was proven to be the Son of God and modern Islam wrong, with similar results. Neither could admit the obvious answer to the obvious but differing sets of logic. (I am christian, but am simply using the above discussion as an example)
One should believe ANY truth, (even if it is uncomfortable) because IT IS true rather than believe ANY tradition simply because IT IS tradition. The word Insight is interesting. It refers to the ability to "see within"; to see ourselves as we really are. Not as we WANT to see ourselves. Even Christians themselves, rarely communicate well or often with the "individual within". And then, on the rare occasion that we are exposed to difficult and disappointing doctrinal "insight", instead of doctrinal progression in the face of better information, we perform a mental "sales job" to convince ourselves that our current dogma is more justified than it really is. We "kick the dogmatic tires" and tell ourselves that this is "low mileage" dogma, in "wonderful shape" and only "used on sundays", and it is trustworthy, despite the loud banging noises coming from under the hood.
I do not believe that holding on to an inherited, (even a cherished tradition) is one of the greater signs of individual faith. There are those rare, but spiritually gifted people are able to abandon the comfort of simple tradition and surrender to God to the point where they say (in essence):
"I will learn what you want to teach me; in the way you want me to learn; from the sources you want me to learn from; in the time frame you want to teach me"
Individuals of the greatest faith[/b] are able to believe that God will reward sincerity and diligent search for truth with a superior accumulation of spiritual knowledge and firm convictions through the workings of the Holy Spirit which is given to the honest and sincere and faithful. And they are able to surrender tradition without any fear as to where the journeying might taken them.
Clear
fu vi ac z
The same world that values "quickness and ease" over quality, encourages a form of "drive by religion" where we engage in various counterfeits of true faith. A superficial acceptance of a religious tradition is often perceived as equivalent to a firm faith in a deeply held conviction. Aggressive defense of religious traditions poorly understood and poorly lived often replaces the quiet commitment of living life consistent with deeply pondered beliefs. We find ourselves defending mere traditions (rather than convictions) not merely with debate, but more importantly (and with far more success) with our psyche.
Lazy societal trends towards abandonment of civic responsibilities create a society that seek lazy religions which forsake moral responsibilities. In such a society, religious values become unbalanced. In an ironic "religious self-centeredness", we may concentrate so much on what our doctrinal wants are, that we sometimes loose sight of our doctrinal needs.
We end up with anemic religions full of people who cling to them out of fear of facing the terrible question: "What are we to believe if what we have been taught is not true?". We want to avoid the difficult discomfort of being without a firm belief system and adopt pre-packaged traditions rather than ask ourselves what we really are to believe.
Once adopting traditions rather than convictions, we then WANT to feel our traditions are as valuable and as deeply felt as our deep convictions. We want our traditions NOT to be inconsistent or upset by facts and truth contrary to these beliefs. We WANT to believe that current levels of understanding are correct. And, our psyche has ways of giving us what we want.
Look at the discussions. Out of hundreds of discussions, how many people give in and admit that someone else is correct and then progress in their knowledge? Such adjustments in belief are very rare, even among christians who should be progressing in their understanding; abandoning an error here, and accepting a truth there. Instead, we often spend our time and effort, building "factual fortresses" around our present understanding and present beliefs in the hope of keeping them safe FROM change.
Even when one reads a post contrary to our beliefs, but which is so strong in it’s logic and so credible in it’s fact that it forces us to make a decision to either believe in it or feel dishonest with ourselves, still, instead of progressing, we take another option and bail out and stop the discussion at that point. Instead of considering the logic and fact, we mentally turn out the lights; go to bed; and dream of our prior dogma.
A Muslim asked a Christian what the Christian would do if somehow it could be proven to the Christian that Islam was correct; that Jesus was NOT anything other than a prophet (but not the son of God). The obvious answer was so repulsive to the Christian that he would not answer, NOT because there was no answer, but because the answer WAS repulsive to him. Interestingly, the question was mirrored back to the muslim regarding what if Jesus was proven to be the Son of God and modern Islam wrong, with similar results. Neither could admit the obvious answer to the obvious but differing sets of logic. (I am christian, but am simply using the above discussion as an example)
One should believe ANY truth, (even if it is uncomfortable) because IT IS true rather than believe ANY tradition simply because IT IS tradition. The word Insight is interesting. It refers to the ability to "see within"; to see ourselves as we really are. Not as we WANT to see ourselves. Even Christians themselves, rarely communicate well or often with the "individual within". And then, on the rare occasion that we are exposed to difficult and disappointing doctrinal "insight", instead of doctrinal progression in the face of better information, we perform a mental "sales job" to convince ourselves that our current dogma is more justified than it really is. We "kick the dogmatic tires" and tell ourselves that this is "low mileage" dogma, in "wonderful shape" and only "used on sundays", and it is trustworthy, despite the loud banging noises coming from under the hood.
I do not believe that holding on to an inherited, (even a cherished tradition) is one of the greater signs of individual faith. There are those rare, but spiritually gifted people are able to abandon the comfort of simple tradition and surrender to God to the point where they say (in essence):
"I will learn what you want to teach me; in the way you want me to learn; from the sources you want me to learn from; in the time frame you want to teach me"
Individuals of the greatest faith[/b] are able to believe that God will reward sincerity and diligent search for truth with a superior accumulation of spiritual knowledge and firm convictions through the workings of the Holy Spirit which is given to the honest and sincere and faithful. And they are able to surrender tradition without any fear as to where the journeying might taken them.
Clear
fu vi ac z
Last edited:
That people misunderstand that I don't worship any of the gods, not even my Patron, with whom I haven't really... communed with, in a while.
It really annoys me when people think that because I believe in the existence of Gaia, that I somehow worship the Earth itself, or that because I have great respect for the spirit of the moon, Selene (or whatever you want to call her, Diana, Artemis, Luna, whatever) I worship the moon itself, when I don't.
It really annoys me when people think that because I believe in the existence of Gaia, that I somehow worship the Earth itself, or that because I have great respect for the spirit of the moon, Selene (or whatever you want to call her, Diana, Artemis, Luna, whatever) I worship the moon itself, when I don't.
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
I have that one too. Just because one believe in the existence of Gods does not mean one has to or does worship them. It okay, I understand. ^_^
Elessar
Well-Known Member
That Jews all know each other. I mean, really. I'll be somewhere, someone finds out I'm Jewish (not too hard - I do wear a kippa all the time), and they randomly say, "I know a Jew in Minnesota, they go to Synagogue X, their name is Y Z. You know him/her?"
Happens all the time!
About Messianic Jews, some more serious ones:
1. That we're Christians pretending to be Jews
2. That we kidnap Orthodox Jewish children and forcibly baptize them in the Sea of Galilee.
3. That we celebrate Christmas and Easter.
4. That we just want to convert all Jews to Christianity.
5. That we're a new religion.
Happens all the time!
About Messianic Jews, some more serious ones:
1. That we're Christians pretending to be Jews
2. That we kidnap Orthodox Jewish children and forcibly baptize them in the Sea of Galilee.
3. That we celebrate Christmas and Easter.
4. That we just want to convert all Jews to Christianity.
5. That we're a new religion.
Worshipper
Active Member
Some of the things that have been posted in this thread as misconceptions are things I actually believe. If I'm wrong on them, I'd really like to be corrected. On some of them, though, I don't think I'm wrong.
UUs:
Sure, the parameters described here exist:
Or is the frustration just the lack of explicit acknowledgement of the parameters when people say "they can believe whatever they want"?
Or, is the frustration not with the statement itself (which seems to be accurate), but rather with the tone they use to make that statement a tone that betrays some negative evaluation of the fact that you can believe whatever you want, as though freedom of conscience is somehow inherently deficient in their eyes?
Atheists:
I thought the lack of belief went more with the agnostic label kind of the "I don't know, so I'm not basing my life on the issue either way," sort of thing.
I also don't know that I would agree with you that there are no holy texts and no worship and no ceremonies. I certainly cannot accept that there is no priestly class. And most atheists hold a great deal of beliefs based on faith alone. If we're talking about scientific atheists generally, then we have to say it's a religion. You personally might not behave religiously in that way or any way, but a huge proportion of the people who would classify themselves with you do.
Buddhists:
Zoroastrians:
Hindus:
Jews:
Messianic Jews:
Mormons:
And even the Salt Lake church practices polygamy. The Salt Lake church regularly marries people to multiple spouses. If it's a man being married to multiple spouses, then all previous wives must be dead, but the man and the newest wife can be alive. If it's a woman married to multiple spouses, then the woman and all her husbands have to be dead. But the whole point behind those proxy marriages is that there's no distinction between the living and the dead in God's eyes, that death is no real boundary. And so we still practice polygamy all the time.
The misconception about my own faith (Mormonism) that I find most annoying is that we all believe the same thing. If you've read this whole post, I'm sure that won't surprise you I'm really not a big fan of the thinking that says "my brand of x is the only true brand of x and everyone who claims to be x but doesn't do it my way isn't really x but suffers from a horrible misconception about x."
But a lot of people both within Mormonism and without it think that all Mormons think alike, or that they should. And that is so not true. Mormonism is very tolerant of a very wide variety of religious belief. You can be a good Mormon and believe just about whatever you want.
UUs:
Now, three of you have said this is a misconception you hate, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it's a misconception. Even after reading the explanations to Katzpur's question on this, I still don't see how it's a misconception.
Sure, the parameters described here exist:
But within those parameters, how on earth is it a misconception to say that an individual UU can believe whatever he wants, especially if each one is free to believe what his or her conscience demands?
Or is the frustration just the lack of explicit acknowledgement of the parameters when people say "they can believe whatever they want"?
Or, is the frustration not with the statement itself (which seems to be accurate), but rather with the tone they use to make that statement a tone that betrays some negative evaluation of the fact that you can believe whatever you want, as though freedom of conscience is somehow inherently deficient in their eyes?
Atheists:
It is. I suspect the real problem here is that there are different definitions of the word religion. I'm sure a person could define religion in a way that excludes atheism. But I think such a definition would be too narrow. There's a particular set of mindsets whose elements each fulfill a certain function in human life, and defining religion in such a way that it excludes atheism would divide that set of mindsets across semantic boundaries. Christianity and atheism are both in that set. There ought to be a word for that set. Religion is the best one we've got. It seems like saying otherwise is just playing word games.
Atheism isn't a lack of belief. It is a belief. Isn't the fundamental idea of atheism that there is no god? That has certainly never been proven. To hold an idea without definitive proof is to believe. Am I misunderstanding atheism here?
I thought the lack of belief went more with the agnostic label kind of the "I don't know, so I'm not basing my life on the issue either way," sort of thing.
I also don't know that I would agree with you that there are no holy texts and no worship and no ceremonies. I certainly cannot accept that there is no priestly class. And most atheists hold a great deal of beliefs based on faith alone. If we're talking about scientific atheists generally, then we have to say it's a religion. You personally might not behave religiously in that way or any way, but a huge proportion of the people who would classify themselves with you do.
Unless you personally witness a repetition of the experiment, your belief is based on faith. If you believe any finding of anyone's study without having seen it tested yourself, then you exercise faith. You might not believe so readily yourself, but I think most people who classify themselves with you do.
This statement shows that, for you, scientific atheism probably is a religion. You have chosen science to stand in for supernatural religion. That is, it's fulfilling the same psychological and sociological functions that the mindsets you are used to calling religions fulfill. The only reason those other mindsets are there is to fulfill those functions. You have chosen a mindset to fulfill those functions. If it's doing what those others were made to do, why isn't it also a religion? It may not be a supernatural religion, but does that mean it's not a religion?
Buddhists:
Aren't there Buddhists who do worship the Buddha and do view him as a sort of supernatural being?
I thought a lot of Buddhists believe in reincarnation. They don't?
Zoroastrians:
Zoroastrianism isn't a dying religion? How so? I thought the number of Zoroastrians was shrinking pretty quickly (given the long history of the faith).
Hindus:
So it sounds like the two of you don't worship multiple objectively real divine entities. But aren't there Hindus who do? Like, a lot of them? If so, then it's not a misconception. The misconception would be that all Hindus see it that way.That the myriad "Gods" of the Hindus are conceived as objectively real entities like the Celestial Beings of the Christians and Muslims.
The Hindu gods are, in fact, subjective beings dreamed up by individuals as spiritual aids.
Unfortunately, this misconception is also common among religiously naive Hindus as well....
Jews:
I don't understand this statement. What does it mean to be God's chosen people if you are in no conceivable better than someone else? Are all people God's chosen people or are the Jews unique among the nations in being God's chosen people? If the Jews are unique in that, then what is the point in being God's chosen people if you're not in any way better? Is it that you're worse? If you're equal, then it seems like it's meaningless to be God's chosen people."G-d's Chosen People" does not mean that i am in any way, shape, or form better than anyone else nor does Judaism teach this!
Isn't that the case with just about all religious people? I think most religious people see their religion as fundamentally important for them and something that guides all aspects of their life, including politics. All my political views are based on my religious beliefs. Most everyone I've met or heard of who is religious feels the same way.
I don't know that the Jews who control the media are necessarily religious, but the media in the U.S. at least are controlled by a disproportionately large number of Jews. That is, the proportion of the media controlled by Jews is way over 2%, the proportion of the population that is Jewish. I don't know that it means anything that that's the case, but it is the case.
I wish all Jews felt that way. Unfortunately, some Jews do equate the two, I think.
Messianic Jews:
How long has the religion been practiced in a continuous, unbroken tradition?
Mormons:
That's not really a misconception. We don't all practice polygamy, but lots of Mormons do. Those that are known to take on marriages with multiple living spouses are not in communion with the Salt Lake church, but we're not the only Mormons out there. Not all Christians are in communion with the Roman church, but that doesn't make them not Christian. Plenty of Mormons practice polygamy with living spouses. The misconception isn't that we practice polygamy, but that all Mormons practice polygamy.
And even the Salt Lake church practices polygamy. The Salt Lake church regularly marries people to multiple spouses. If it's a man being married to multiple spouses, then all previous wives must be dead, but the man and the newest wife can be alive. If it's a woman married to multiple spouses, then the woman and all her husbands have to be dead. But the whole point behind those proxy marriages is that there's no distinction between the living and the dead in God's eyes, that death is no real boundary. And so we still practice polygamy all the time.
The misconception about my own faith (Mormonism) that I find most annoying is that we all believe the same thing. If you've read this whole post, I'm sure that won't surprise you I'm really not a big fan of the thinking that says "my brand of x is the only true brand of x and everyone who claims to be x but doesn't do it my way isn't really x but suffers from a horrible misconception about x."
But a lot of people both within Mormonism and without it think that all Mormons think alike, or that they should. And that is so not true. Mormonism is very tolerant of a very wide variety of religious belief. You can be a good Mormon and believe just about whatever you want.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
I can answer both the ones about Jews and Messianic Jews:
The meaning of "G-d's Chosen People" is that G-d chose us, the Jews, to be his special, select people. Not because Jews are any better than anyone else, or any worse, but it was a conscious choice G-d made to reveal himself to the Jewish People. This doesn't make Jews better.
The misconception being shown here, Worshipper, is that Jews, as a single, monolithic group, control all media resources, a misconception created in part because of the disproportionate number of Jews that own and/or participate in the media. Really, this occurs because of a cultural distinction - Jews tend to be better educated than non-Jews, thus Jews tend to be found more in areas of education and areas that require education, such as the media. However, despite the disproportionate number of Jews in the media, we as a group do not have any direct control over the media, an idea originally put forth in Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an antisemitic tract published in Tsarist Russia.
The third one, yes, Zionism and Judaism are different. I myself am a Zionist AND a Jew, but one does not necessitate the other. I know non-Jewish Zionists and non-Zionist Jews alike.
Messianic Judaism has been continuously practiced as a folk tradition in remote parts of the Caucasus and in Ethiopia since the first century of the common era. Another form was developed due to forced conversion of Jews in Spain in the late 15th century, leading to a form of "Jewish Catholicism" still practiced in Iberia and Latin America - many of these who lived in the Benelux were killed in the Holocaust. The final form which still exists today drew out of the Hebrew Christian movement in the mid-19th century, including such figures as Benjamin Disraeli. The latter form is the most common today, especially in the United States and the West, through the Judaic Revolution led by American Rabbi Martin Chernoff in the late 20th century which reinvented Hebrew Christianity by formally rejecting Christian holidays and supercessionist theology and readopting Jewish Holy Days and the Torah as permanently binding, and the validity some Talmudic texts.
My own ancestors came from the first two, from Armenia and Spain. I generally associate with the latter group, though due to my ancestry and own inclinations, I tend toward the former's practice.
The meaning of "G-d's Chosen People" is that G-d chose us, the Jews, to be his special, select people. Not because Jews are any better than anyone else, or any worse, but it was a conscious choice G-d made to reveal himself to the Jewish People. This doesn't make Jews better.
The misconception being shown here, Worshipper, is that Jews, as a single, monolithic group, control all media resources, a misconception created in part because of the disproportionate number of Jews that own and/or participate in the media. Really, this occurs because of a cultural distinction - Jews tend to be better educated than non-Jews, thus Jews tend to be found more in areas of education and areas that require education, such as the media. However, despite the disproportionate number of Jews in the media, we as a group do not have any direct control over the media, an idea originally put forth in Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an antisemitic tract published in Tsarist Russia.
The third one, yes, Zionism and Judaism are different. I myself am a Zionist AND a Jew, but one does not necessitate the other. I know non-Jewish Zionists and non-Zionist Jews alike.
Messianic Judaism has been continuously practiced as a folk tradition in remote parts of the Caucasus and in Ethiopia since the first century of the common era. Another form was developed due to forced conversion of Jews in Spain in the late 15th century, leading to a form of "Jewish Catholicism" still practiced in Iberia and Latin America - many of these who lived in the Benelux were killed in the Holocaust. The final form which still exists today drew out of the Hebrew Christian movement in the mid-19th century, including such figures as Benjamin Disraeli. The latter form is the most common today, especially in the United States and the West, through the Judaic Revolution led by American Rabbi Martin Chernoff in the late 20th century which reinvented Hebrew Christianity by formally rejecting Christian holidays and supercessionist theology and readopting Jewish Holy Days and the Torah as permanently binding, and the validity some Talmudic texts.
My own ancestors came from the first two, from Armenia and Spain. I generally associate with the latter group, though due to my ancestry and own inclinations, I tend toward the former's practice.
Last edited:
Worshipper
Active Member
I don't see how that doesn't make the Jews better. Did God also reveal himself to other nations? If not, then the Jews' perception of God would be more accurate (or, better) than others', except inasmuch as they conform their own views to the views of the Jews. And here I'm talking not about all and sundry individual Jews, but rather the Jewish People that God revealed himself to.
So the misconception isn't that the Jews control the media but rather that there exists a Jewish conspiracy that controls the media. Okay, I can see that as a misconception.
I see Zionism and Judaism as distinct and point to instances of non-Jewish Zionists and non-Zionist Jews as examples. You see Zionism and Judaism as distinct and point to the same examples. But not everybody agrees with us. Most everybody does, but not everybody. And I'm not talking about the people who aren't either one and so don't know what they're talking about.
I have met Jews (a small minority of those I've known) who insist that Zionism without Judaism is not Zionism and (more emphatically) Judaism without Zionism is not Judaism. That all true Jews are Zionists and that all knowing Zionists are Jews. I think they're playing silly word games for political purposes, personally. But they claim to really feel that way.
I think that, from an objective point of view, it's true and obvious that Zionism and Judaism are distinct. But there are some people out there saying otherwise, and they make it tough to say whether this is a misconception or not. I think it is a misconception, but I also think it's a misconception to say that Judaism and Zionism must be two separate things. There are some Zionist Jews who believe that, in the modern era, they are and must be one and the same. I think a proper conception has to recognize the existence of that minority viewpoint.
Good to know. I wasn't aware of any but the third of these forms as Messianic Judaism.
I knew of the conversos, of course, but I figured that if they accepted Jesus as the Messiah then they fully converted and that if they didn't, then they returned to practicing Sephardic-style Judaism as soon as it became legal for them to do so. I had no idea that some accepted Jesus as the Messiah without becoming totally Catholic. That's good to know.
And I knew nothing at all of the first group.
Thank you for informing me!
In light of all this, though, I think it's fair to say that Messianic Judaism is a term that refers both to new and to ancient religions. It's a misconception to say it's a new religion, but it would be just as much a misconception to say that it's an ancient religion, right? A proper conception requires the fuller understanding you've provided here.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
The point is that we, as G-d's chosen people, had him reveal himself to us. It wasn't because we were more perfect, less sinful, more godlike, or, in any way, better than anyone else. It just means that he chose us to receive his revelation. It's like picking between pizza and hamburgers for lunch, though I am loathe to use such a simplified example - pizza nor hamburgers has any inherent "being better" than the other one, but you make a choice.
Good to know. I wasn't aware of any but the third of these forms as Messianic Judaism.
I knew of the conversos, of course, but I figured that if they accepted Jesus as the Messiah then they fully converted and that if they didn't, then they returned to practicing Sephardic-style Judaism as soon as it became legal for them to do so. I had no idea that some accepted Jesus as the Messiah without becoming totally Catholic. That's good to know.
And I knew nothing at all of the first group.
Thank you for informing me!
In light of all this, though, I think it's fair to say that Messianic Judaism is a term that refers both to new and to ancient religions. It's a misconception to say it's a new religion, but it would be just as much a misconception to say that it's an ancient religion, right? A proper conception requires the fuller understanding you've provided here.
That would be accurate. The problem, really, is the misconception that only this latter group exists. While I am a member of one of the organizations that is in vast majority this latter group, and the latter group is without question the majority of Messianic Jews, you cannot discount those of us who have held these views for centuries or millennia.
Worshipper
Active Member
Thanks, Elessar (it's kind of weird to call you that; I feel like I should make an obeisance or something), for clearing up those other matters for me.
The issue of God's chosen people, though, still confuses me.
The point is, if you choose one thing to the exclusion of all else, you do it precisely because it is in some way, shape, or form, better than all the other options.
I'm not trying to say that the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people leads to all-out Jewish Supremacism with all the nasty trappings we might imagine associated with that. But to go to the other extreme and say there's absolutely no way at all that it means the Jews are in any way whatsoever better than everyone else doesn't make any sense to me.
The only way I can reconcile the two ideas is to suppose that being God's chosen people means that the process of being chosen was random or arbitrary. God wrote down all the nations on little slips of paper and tossed them into his hat, shut his eyes, and picked one, and the Jews were it. Probably a more sophisticated model, but morally the same. That doesn't strike me as the sort of methodology Jews would suppose God to use. Gott würfelt nicht, and all that. I suspect Jews figure God is more deliberate in his actions.
But if God deliberately chose the Jews, then I can't see how that idea can be reconciled to the idea that the Jews are in no way better than any other nation.
The issue of God's chosen people, though, still confuses me.
Well, you choose pizza (or hamburgers) because it actually does seem better to you. Tastier. More filling. Has the right kind of nutrients that your body happens to be craving at the moment. Whatever. There is some way in which it seems preferable to you, so you make the choice. Maybe it's just the the pizza place delivers, or that the hamburger stand is right next door. Or that it's cheaper to make pizza than it is to make hamburgers.
The point is, if you choose one thing to the exclusion of all else, you do it precisely because it is in some way, shape, or form, better than all the other options.
I'm not trying to say that the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people leads to all-out Jewish Supremacism with all the nasty trappings we might imagine associated with that. But to go to the other extreme and say there's absolutely no way at all that it means the Jews are in any way whatsoever better than everyone else doesn't make any sense to me.
The only way I can reconcile the two ideas is to suppose that being God's chosen people means that the process of being chosen was random or arbitrary. God wrote down all the nations on little slips of paper and tossed them into his hat, shut his eyes, and picked one, and the Jews were it. Probably a more sophisticated model, but morally the same. That doesn't strike me as the sort of methodology Jews would suppose God to use. Gott würfelt nicht, and all that. I suspect Jews figure God is more deliberate in his actions.
But if God deliberately chose the Jews, then I can't see how that idea can be reconciled to the idea that the Jews are in no way better than any other nation.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
Well, it's really impossible to fully understand this - because G-d does not function on a human level. As Yesha'yahu wrote,
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not my ways," says Hashem
"As high as the sky is above the earth
are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts
-Yesha'yahu 55:8-9 CJB
But that's a theological question, and really we are very far off the topic in OP-
I believe the point being made is simply because Jews believe we are the chosen people, it does not mean we believe we are better than anyone else because of it.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not my ways," says Hashem
"As high as the sky is above the earth
are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts
-Yesha'yahu 55:8-9 CJB
But that's a theological question, and really we are very far off the topic in OP-
I believe the point being made is simply because Jews believe we are the chosen people, it does not mean we believe we are better than anyone else because of it.
ReiðrÅska
Voice deeper than Thor's
That I sacrifice babies to the devil and can turn invisible at night.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, atheism is not a religion. Think of it this way: Would you consider "A-leprechaun-ism" a religion? As in people who don't believe in leprechauns? For that matter, would you consider people who do believe in leprechauns part of the religion of leprechaunism? You would actually have to have much too broad a definition for religion to consider atheism such. There are philosophies that include atheism which could be called religions, but even then, it would be a stretch.
It can be a belief, but it can also be a lack of belief. Again, think of it this way: A child grows up somewhere with atheist parents, and never hears about religion at all. When the child is old enough to talk about religion, someone asks him about it. He knows nothing of God (or any gods) and so he is considered an atheist. I would never say "There is no God". I would just say that I don't believe in God, or that I lack a belief in God.
You are misunderstanding. Here's the way I am: I don't think there is a theistic God. I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong, but I live my life as if I am right. The fundamental idea of atheism is not believing in God. Some call claiming that there is no God "strong atheism", and just claiming not to believe in God "weak atheism".
Basically, "agnostic" is more "I don't know, and I won't answer the question one way or the other". Atheists, like me, might admit that we don't know, but will say that we don't believe in God.
You're still missing the idea. There are texts and things in philosophies that include atheism, for instance humanism. There are books about atheism, but nothing that could be considered a holy text. I'm really not sure where you see a priestly class of atheists. If you told me who you thought this was, I could answer it better. For now, I have no idea what you mean. Everbody takes some things on faith. Faith is part of life, no matter who you are. Again, some atheists might behave religiously, but not about atheism.
For instance, there are some forms of Buddhism which are atheistic. I would still consider those sects of Buddhism to be a religion. That's Buddhism, though, not atheism.
You're stuck on this part, huh? The difference is that, while it can be considered faith, it's not just faith for faith's sake. The results of most scientific experiments I can see for myself. I can see gravity and other obvious things. A good example is global warming. I wouldn't say I believe it, but I think it could be the case. I haven't changed my life because of it yet precisely because I haven't heard a definitive answer. Other experiments aren't as crucial. There are many science experiments done that I can take people's words for, and not change my life because of them. If I take someone's word about God, then I'm going to change my life to fit with that new idea.
Let's put it this way: If most people eat oranges every day to sustain themselves, and I decide to substitute the oranges with lettuce, would I still be eating oranges? Just because you substitute one thing for another doesn't mean that one thing can be defined the same way.
Also, science and religion aren't meant to fulfill the same thing, which is why there are many religious scientists. Science explains things we experience in the natural world. Religion is supposed to concern itself with the unknowable.