How did you become religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most indoctrination happens in childhood. Only a small number of people pursue or change religion on their own.

Not true at all. I can think of many people that I know personally who found Christ as an adult.

Non-religious people? With no religious upbringing who "found christ" from a vacuum?

I am not saying there are none, but your claim of "many" of the above, I call BS.

Well, you would be wrong. Yes, non-religious people.

No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum. Some of them had hit hard or bad places in their lives, and turned back to God. They found a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church, and found their way there. Others realized that they had been living what they viewed as fun but ultimately unfulfilling lives, and sought more. God has a way of putting people in our lives when we are searching, to help lead them back to Him. It happened to me, although I had been raised in a Protestant church so not non-religious in upbringing.

So first you say I am "wrong", and then admit that I am right about not coming to christ from a vacuum, and then provide examples, none of which indicate that I am wrong.

Well done.

Sorry; I believe we have different definitions of the term "in a vacuum."

Lol.. "Sorry", I believe you know exactly what I meant and your post confirmed it. The proof is in your own words: "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum".

DP, I assumed by "in a vacuum" you meant "without a Christian background/upbringing." I would consider someone who is secular/atheist and then had some bad luck in life and found Jesus to be coming to Christianity in a vacuum. Given how pervasive Christianity is in American culture, I think that's the most vacuum-like conditions you're going to get. If by "vacuum" you meant "came from the middle of the jungle and never heard of Jesus, but then discovered Christianity while walking along a sun-dappled path and emerged from the trees to join a church," then I think you're very unrealistic.

I repeat: No you did not assume that, evidenced by your statement "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum."

You should stop now.

...DP means "different poster" as in NOT the person you've been going back and forth with in that thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

So the Jewish God before Christ showed up was false?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most indoctrination happens in childhood. Only a small number of people pursue or change religion on their own.

Not true at all. I can think of many people that I know personally who found Christ as an adult.

Non-religious people? With no religious upbringing who "found christ" from a vacuum?

I am not saying there are none, but your claim of "many" of the above, I call BS.

Well, you would be wrong. Yes, non-religious people.

No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum. Some of them had hit hard or bad places in their lives, and turned back to God. They found a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church, and found their way there. Others realized that they had been living what they viewed as fun but ultimately unfulfilling lives, and sought more. God has a way of putting people in our lives when we are searching, to help lead them back to Him. It happened to me, although I had been raised in a Protestant church so not non-religious in upbringing.

"a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church"

A supportive friend = over 60% of Americans identify as Christian. You didn't say a Jewish counselor or a strong mosque or temple.

The only reason they "found" christ is because its the dominant religion in the US. Do you think they would find christ if it were something different?

I'm a DP but I don't see the issue with this. Of course people are more likely to "find" the religion that's dominant within their location and culture.

If your point is that there is never a vacuum because culture exists, fine, correct, but you're quibbling about semantics at this point when PP's meaning is clearly that they weren't brought up religious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

So the Jewish God before Christ showed up was false?

This seems to deliberately miss the point, but I'll respond.

The basic understanding is that, with the coming of Jesus the Messiah, Judaism diverged into two primary streams: true and false. The true continuation of Judaism came to be called Christianity, as it accepted all the Old Testament prophecies and their fulfillment in Christ. The false continuation of Judaism is the religion of the Pharaisees, with their hyper-focus on the law.

The Old Testament God is triune just as the New Testament God is. This was prophesied in types and shadows and ultimately fully revealed in Christ, a revelation for which we now have the responsibility to respond, either with acceptance or rejection. The Pharisees rejected Christ as God even when they *knew* Christ was God because it threatened their power system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most indoctrination happens in childhood. Only a small number of people pursue or change religion on their own.

Not true at all. I can think of many people that I know personally who found Christ as an adult.

Non-religious people? With no religious upbringing who "found christ" from a vacuum?

I am not saying there are none, but your claim of "many" of the above, I call BS.

Well, you would be wrong. Yes, non-religious people.

No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum. Some of them had hit hard or bad places in their lives, and turned back to God. They found a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church, and found their way there. Others realized that they had been living what they viewed as fun but ultimately unfulfilling lives, and sought more. God has a way of putting people in our lives when we are searching, to help lead them back to Him. It happened to me, although I had been raised in a Protestant church so not non-religious in upbringing.

So first you say I am "wrong", and then admit that I am right about not coming to christ from a vacuum, and then provide examples, none of which indicate that I am wrong.

Well done.

Sorry; I believe we have different definitions of the term "in a vacuum."

Lol.. "Sorry", I believe you know exactly what I meant and your post confirmed it. The proof is in your own words: "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum".

DP, I assumed by "in a vacuum" you meant "without a Christian background/upbringing." I would consider someone who is secular/atheist and then had some bad luck in life and found Jesus to be coming to Christianity in a vacuum. Given how pervasive Christianity is in American culture, I think that's the most vacuum-like conditions you're going to get. If by "vacuum" you meant "came from the middle of the jungle and never heard of Jesus, but then discovered Christianity while walking along a sun-dappled path and emerged from the trees to join a church," then I think you're very unrealistic.

I repeat: No you did not assume that, evidenced by your statement "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum."

You should stop now.

...DP means "different poster" as in NOT the person you've been going back and forth with in that thread.

Sorry, that was my miss. But you responded to a point made by a previous poster when the debate was about what THEY said, and I pasted it to show he knew what I meant. Why would what YOU assumed be relevant wrt their response?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

So the Jewish God before Christ showed up was false?

This seems to deliberately miss the point, but I'll respond.

The basic understanding is that, with the coming of Jesus the Messiah, Judaism diverged into two primary streams: true and false. The true continuation of Judaism came to be called Christianity, as it accepted all the Old Testament prophecies and their fulfillment in Christ. The false continuation of Judaism is the religion of the Pharaisees, with their hyper-focus on the law.

The Old Testament God is triune just as the New Testament God is. This was prophesied in types and shadows and ultimately fully revealed in Christ, a revelation for which we now have the responsibility to respond, either with acceptance or rejection. The Pharisees rejected Christ as God even when they *knew* Christ was God because it threatened their power system.

This sounds like a long way of saying supersessionism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

So the Jewish God before Christ showed up was false?

This seems to deliberately miss the point, but I'll respond.

The basic understanding is that, with the coming of Jesus the Messiah, Judaism diverged into two primary streams: true and false. The true continuation of Judaism came to be called Christianity, as it accepted all the Old Testament prophecies and their fulfillment in Christ. The false continuation of Judaism is the religion of the Pharaisees, with their hyper-focus on the law.

The Old Testament God is triune just as the New Testament God is. This was prophesied in types and shadows and ultimately fully revealed in Christ, a revelation for which we now have the responsibility to respond, either with acceptance or rejection. The Pharisees rejected Christ as God even when they *knew* Christ was God because it threatened their power system.

This sounds like a long way of saying supersessionism.

The reason being that supersessionism or "replacement theology" is incredibly broad and loaded, and is often used as a cheap grab bag term to call someone an anti-Semite. I understand that, so I explained the traditional view of the church instead of using a rather new term that is often weaponized as a slur.

[Anonymous]

I also strongly disagree with it on an etymological basis, because the church does not at all teach that it has replaced or superseded Old Testament Israel. The contention is nearly the opposite: That the church is the uninterrupted continuation of Old Testament Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most indoctrination happens in childhood. Only a small number of people pursue or change religion on their own.

Not true at all. I can think of many people that I know personally who found Christ as an adult.

Non-religious people? With no religious upbringing who "found christ" from a vacuum?

I am not saying there are none, but your claim of "many" of the above, I call BS.

Well, you would be wrong. Yes, non-religious people.

No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum. Some of them had hit hard or bad places in their lives, and turned back to God. They found a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church, and found their way there. Others realized that they had been living what they viewed as fun but ultimately unfulfilling lives, and sought more. God has a way of putting people in our lives when we are searching, to help lead them back to Him. It happened to me, although I had been raised in a Protestant church so not non-religious in upbringing.

So first you say I am "wrong", and then admit that I am right about not coming to christ from a vacuum, and then provide examples, none of which indicate that I am wrong.

Well done.

Sorry; I believe we have different definitions of the term "in a vacuum."

Lol.. "Sorry", I believe you know exactly what I meant and your post confirmed it. The proof is in your own words: "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum".

DP, I assumed by "in a vacuum" you meant "without a Christian background/upbringing." I would consider someone who is secular/atheist and then had some bad luck in life and found Jesus to be coming to Christianity in a vacuum. Given how pervasive Christianity is in American culture, I think that's the most vacuum-like conditions you're going to get. If by "vacuum" you meant "came from the middle of the jungle and never heard of Jesus, but then discovered Christianity while walking along a sun-dappled path and emerged from the trees to join a church," then I think you're very unrealistic.

I repeat: No you did not assume that, evidenced by your statement "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum."

You should stop now.

...DP means "different poster" as in NOT the person you've been going back and forth with in that thread.

Sorry, that was my miss. But you responded to a point made by a previous poster when the debate was about what THEY said, and I pasted it to show he knew what I meant. Why would what YOU assumed be relevant wrt their response?

You're debating in a public message board that lots of other people are following. I chimed in because I was following along with the back-and-forth and thought that the initial intent of "in a vacuum" would have been more grounded in reality. If you actually meant for "in a vacuum" to mean without any influence from Christianity whatsoever (no Christian friend or counselor or church on the corner offering a grief support group or whatever the case may be), I just don't think your debate with PP is worthwhile, since that's not a realistic expectation.

Basically, I assumed that my comment was relevant because it demonstrated an assumption about your meaning of "in a vacuum" and the possibilities of alternative interpretations of what it might mean to be "in a vacuum" with regard to this topic. Even the PP's quote "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum" doesn't show that they actually understood your meaning, only that they made an assumption about your meaning, which may or may not have been accurate.

Perhaps you could clarify it would look like for someone to become religious "in a vacuum" so we can all be on the same page?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also strongly disagree with it on an etymological basis, because the church does not at all teach that it has replaced or superseded Old Testament Israel. The contention is nearly the opposite: That the church is the uninterrupted continuation of Old Testament Israel.

I'm sorry, I just really don't understand how that's "the opposite" of supersessionism? How can the church be the "uninterrupted continuation of Old Testament Israel" when there are still Jews practicing Judaism today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also strongly disagree with it on an etymological basis, because the church does not at all teach that it has replaced or superseded Old Testament Israel. The contention is nearly the opposite: That the church is the uninterrupted continuation of Old Testament Israel.

I'm sorry, I just really don't understand how that's "the opposite" of supersessionism? How can the church be the "uninterrupted continuation of Old Testament Israel" when there are still Jews practicing Judaism today?

Because they're not. Do a little research on Rabbinic Judaism. It is not "still" Judaism, as if it were the same religion that the faithful Old Testament Jews practiced. It is new and different and has only superficial and misleading resemblances to OT Judaism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Protestant, but never really felt like it made sense, even as a kid. As a teenager, I became agnostic, mostly because I couldn't reconcile so many tragedies in the world with the concept of an all-powerful, loving God. I never considered myself an atheist, because I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there, but I was comfortable with questioning and being uncertain of God's existence.

In college, I became friends with an atheist and her certainty that God didn't exist caused a knee-jerk reaction in me that God did exist. Acknowledging the certainty I felt caused me to reexamine my agnosticism, and ultimately I went looking for a religion that embraced the uncertainty of God's nature (or our understanding of God) without necessarily being uncertain of God's existence. I found Judaism, which encourages questioning and critical thinking and views those not as a crisis of faith, but as an expression of faith. I converted to Judaism and married a Jew and am now raising a Jewish family.

"I couldn't fully commit to the idea that there is nothing out there" - Overcoming the fear that has been instilled in you through most of your life both through direct teaching (you were raised protestant) and society/culture (christianity is the majority religion in the US) is typically the last step to realizing truth. It's a shame you have not yet been able to reach it, but I respect your search.

I think you may have misunderstood my story. It wasn't out of fear that I rejected atheism (which I never committed to) or agnosticism. I wasn't afraid of the possibility of nothingness or the uncertainty of not knowing; I embraced the unknown of God's existence and largely lived my formative years without God. I realized when presented with atheist certainty that there is no God, that I did, in fact, believe there is a God, and that my issue was simply with the Christian understanding of God, rather than God's existence itself. I'm not still reaching or searching for a truth. For me, Judaism is it.

What were your original doubts about agnosticism? How did you settle on Judaism when Christians and Muslims all are technically worshipping the same God? Did you consider any non-Abrahamic?

Uh...no. Christians do not believe this.

What God are Christians worshipping, in your opinion? And how does it differ from the Jewish and Muslim God?

Non-Christian here, but it seems like they worship Jesus more than God. And, I know, I know, Jesus IS God somehow, but my guess is that if you don't worship Jesus, you're not worshipping the same God, or not doing it correctly? *shrug*

I agree with these two previous posts. What I don't understand was the poster who said, "Uh...no. Christians do not believe this."

To this poster, you do realize that Jesus was a Jew? He was born into a Jewish family and was raised in Jewish traditions. He participated in Jewish customs and teachings, which is evident throughout the New Testament.

Take for example Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' mission was a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish teachings.

For a non-theist, this is in part why certain aspects of religion make zero sense, especially the "Holy Trinity" idea of Christians.

PP here. The traditional Christian position is that Christianity is the continuation of spiritual Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the "true Israel" and all who are in Christ are in Israel. Christ is indeed seen as the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament said about the One who was to come. Also in the New Testament, Paul points out that now there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile] but all are one in Christ. He also says the he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is seen (both by their own self-identifying account and by Christians) as the continuation of the Pharisaic Judaism that Christ so opposed when He was on earth. Traditionally, Christians see this Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism as a false Israel.

And nothing in this explanation makes the original statement untrue that all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different.

With that said, how do you square the trinity concept with it also being the jewish god?

I don't. The Christian contention is that a Christ-less god is no god at all. In other words a false god, an idol. Like Baal or Zeus or Caesar or whatever.

And this is why your reasoning makes zero sense. If jesus is both god and part of god (insert whatever rationale explaining the trinity concept here), then the above statement of, "all the abrahamic faiths are worshipping the same god, even if how they interpret how to worship/practice their faith are different" is still true.

The god of christians, jews, and muslims is the same god. The believers are interpreting what god is differently (or how to worship).

This is why its silly to non-believers to see all the arguing and fighting amongst them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most indoctrination happens in childhood. Only a small number of people pursue or change religion on their own.

Not true at all. I can think of many people that I know personally who found Christ as an adult.

Non-religious people? With no religious upbringing who "found christ" from a vacuum?

I am not saying there are none, but your claim of "many" of the above, I call BS.

Well, you would be wrong. Yes, non-religious people.

No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum. Some of them had hit hard or bad places in their lives, and turned back to God. They found a supportive friend, or Christian counselor, or a strong church, and found their way there. Others realized that they had been living what they viewed as fun but ultimately unfulfilling lives, and sought more. God has a way of putting people in our lives when we are searching, to help lead them back to Him. It happened to me, although I had been raised in a Protestant church so not non-religious in upbringing.

So first you say I am "wrong", and then admit that I am right about not coming to christ from a vacuum, and then provide examples, none of which indicate that I am wrong.

Well done.

Sorry; I believe we have different definitions of the term "in a vacuum."

Lol.. "Sorry", I believe you know exactly what I meant and your post confirmed it. The proof is in your own words: "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum".

DP, I assumed by "in a vacuum" you meant "without a Christian background/upbringing." I would consider someone who is secular/atheist and then had some bad luck in life and found Jesus to be coming to Christianity in a vacuum. Given how pervasive Christianity is in American culture, I think that's the most vacuum-like conditions you're going to get. If by "vacuum" you meant "came from the middle of the jungle and never heard of Jesus, but then discovered Christianity while walking along a sun-dappled path and emerged from the trees to join a church," then I think you're very unrealistic.

I repeat: No you did not assume that, evidenced by your statement "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum."

You should stop now.

...DP means "different poster" as in NOT the person you've been going back and forth with in that thread.

Sorry, that was my miss. But you responded to a point made by a previous poster when the debate was about what THEY said, and I pasted it to show he knew what I meant. Why would what YOU assumed be relevant wrt their response?

You're debating in a public message board that lots of other people are following. I chimed in because I was following along with the back-and-forth and thought that the initial intent of "in a vacuum" would have been more grounded in reality. If you actually meant for "in a vacuum" to mean without any influence from Christianity whatsoever (no Christian friend or counselor or church on the corner offering a grief support group or whatever the case may be), I just don't think your debate with PP is worthwhile, since that's not a realistic expectation.

Basically, I assumed that my comment was relevant because it demonstrated an assumption about your meaning of "in a vacuum" and the possibilities of alternative interpretations of what it might mean to be "in a vacuum" with regard to this topic. Even the PP's quote "No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum" doesn't show that they actually understood your meaning, only that they made an assumption about your meaning, which may or may not have been accurate.

Perhaps you could clarify it would look like for someone to become religious "in a vacuum" so we can all be on the same page?

I know this is a public message board, and anonymous. But you responded to a post which was very specifically about another posters response, and not the topic they responded to.

"No, they did not come to Christ in what I assume you mean by a vacuum" doesn't show that they actually understood your meaning, only that they made an assumption about your meaning, which may or may not have been accurate.

Yes, and that was exactly my point -- pp correctly assumed my meaning, responded as such, and then later tried to backpedal and say they thought it meant something else. That's what you responded to, not the original point.

I repeat my mea culpa I missed the clear "DP" but I hope now you can see why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was debating Frank Turek, who I find a bit middlebrow, overconfident, etc. (I frankly do not enjoy watching him.) I seem to remember that they were sitting on stage at the time (not standing at their lecterns).

I remain curious as to what the point was that convinced you so well.

As I expected, no response.