26 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadchristianity is not a sect of the jewish religion. judaism is not defined by helenistic ideology so any injection is considered foreign and that has nothing to do with judaism being associated only with the jewish tribe.
No, those ideas were foreign heresies to some of the other Jews. So the Jewish religion gained a new sect or denomination. How does one decide who is the 'True Jew'? Most of the other aspects of the Jewish religion were equally imported from other peoples and were probably at some point regarded as foreign heresies by some members of the Jewish tribe.
tribe. I don't think you would call any of the ideas the Christians imported 'foreign'.
26 Sep 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo you see, it is you that is confusing the tribe with the religion.
christianity is not a sect of the jewish religion. judaism is not defined by helenistic ideology so any injection is considered foreign and that has nothing to do with judaism being associated only with the jewish tribe.
26 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou're the one that made the claim that christianity is a sect of the jewish religion. it seems that you can't tell when speciation happens in a religion and you can no longer call them compatible.
So you see, it is you that is confusing the tribe with the religion.
26 Sep 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt is you that incorrectly insists that the religion is tied to the tribe and that you own the definition. Sorry but that's not how it works. If Christians want to call themselves Jews then they have every right to do so and the dictionary definition will be updated accordingly.
you're the one that made the claim that christianity is a sect of the jewish religion. it seems that you can't tell when speciation happens in a religion and you can no longer call them compatible.
27 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat's fine. i'll just pin this as you interfering in yet another topic of which you have little understanding.
It is you that incorrectly insists that the religion is tied to the tribe and that you own the definition. Sorry but that's not how it works. If Christians want to call themselves Jews then they have every right to do so and the dictionary definition will be updated accordingly.
27 Sep 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAnd I'll pin this as you pretending ignorance in others as a way to get out of admitting you are just plain wrong. If you really thought I had 'little understanding' you would have attempted to educate me on the matter. The truth is that you have realised your error but don't have the courage to admit it.
that's fine. i'll just pin this as you interfering in yet another topic of which you have little understanding.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadi've tried that route other times, i don't think you can be educated, especially when you know you're wrong but keep up the argument for argument's sake.
And I'll pin this as you pretending ignorance in others as a way to get out of admitting you are just plain wrong. If you really thought I had 'little understanding' you would have attempted to educate me on the matter. The truth is that you have realised your error but don't have the courage to admit it.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, you haven't. Last time we had a disagreement you used the exact same tactic ie insulting your opponents intelligence or education and refusing to provide any actual argument to support your case.
i've tried that route other times,
So lets hear it. What are your actual qualifications with regards to 'defining and naming religions'? Do you have a degree? A certificate? You read something on Wikipedia?
What exactly leads you to believe that I have 'little understanding' of the naming of religions whereas you are a 'know it all'?
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadtry to educate you again? like i said, that won't work. you know you're wrong but keep up argument for argument's sake. go ahead and convince yourself that christianity is a sect of judaism. good luck with that one.
No, you haven't. Last time we had a disagreement you used the exact same tactic ie insulting your opponents intelligence or education and refusing to provide any actual argument to support your case.
So lets hear it. What are your actual qualifications with regards to 'defining and naming religions'? Do you have a degree? A certificate? You read somethin ...[text shortened]... I have 'little understanding' of the naming of religions whereas you are a 'know it all'?
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritActually I know you are wrong and you are proving it by refusing to justify your claims and instead pretending I have 'little understanding' of the topic. Sorry but that's a ridiculous excuse and you know it.
try to educate you again? like i said, that won't work. you know you're wrong but keep up argument for argument's sake. go ahead and convince yourself that christianity is a sect of judaism. good luck with that one.
And just to be clear, I am not claiming that current Christianity is a sect of Judaism. I am claiming that if Christians chose to call themselves Jews they would have every right to do so (and would be a sect) and the early Christians were a sect of Judaism. The only reason for not calling Christianity a sect of Judaism today is because Christians themselves choose not to call themselves Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadthank you. that article proved me correct and i didn't have to do a thing. good job.
Actually I know you are wrong and you are proving it by refusing to justify your claims and instead pretending I have 'little understanding' of the topic. Sorry but that's a ridiculous excuse and you know it.
And just to be clear, I am not claiming that current Christianity is a sect of Judaism. I am claiming that if Christians chose to call themselves J ...[text shortened]... call themselves Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
29 Sep 12
Wow!!..... just .. Wow!!
Neither of you could give a rats about Christianity, (voidy and Twhitey), as far as I can tell, so this has got more to do with personal pride rather than actual debate about the topic.
(keeping in mind the 40 000+ denominations of Christianity)
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here as I have only skimmed through the last page and a half
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelno, it's quiet all right. earlier he claimed that christianity is a sect of judaism, but now seems to have backed out of that claim and as usual, is not clear about what his objections are.
Wow!!..... just .. Wow!!
Neither of you could give a rats about Christianity, (voidy and Twhitey), as far as I can tell, so this has got more to do with personal pride rather than actual debate about the topic.
(keeping in mind the 40 000+ denominations of Christianity)
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here as I have only skimmed through the last page and a half
he wants to insist that people can call themselves anything they want. i have no objection to that. they can call themselves anything they want. however, what people call themselves does not make them that thing.
you can call yourself a horse, but unless you behave like a horse and are accepted by other horses, your claim is meaningless trot.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelIt has to do with the fact that people do not own words. Many people (Void Spirit included) think they personally own the word 'Christian' and have the right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. Of course he tries to justify it by making up definitions on the spur of the moment to exclude people he doesn't want included.
Neither of you could give a rats about Christianity, (voidy and Twhitey), as far as I can tell, so this has got more to do with personal pride rather than actual debate about the topic.
For example when it came to Jews, he decided that they must be members of the Jewish tribe for them to be members of the Jewish religion. (then had the gall to accuse me of confusing the tribe with the religion).
What he is missing in all of this is how grey edged, how subdivided and how changeable religions actually are. If anything his claims are as ridiculous as creationists claiming the existence of 'kinds' which they then chop and change each time they get backed into a corner.