Christianity

[attofishpi]

(..I was so relieved I didn't need to look up all those

Alabado sea Alá!

Aha! I knew you weren't an infidel.

Please note I have made some important edits in one of the posts (I looked up Mashiach)

[attofishpi]

What's Judaism got to do with it?

What's Judaism got to do with what? Being a Jew? Jeepers I'd never thought of it in that way.

::: thinking really hard :::

"What does Judaism got to do with being a Jew???"

I give up. It's too hard a question Atto! Can you shoot me an easier one?!?

I thought you were asking what flavours Jews come in (some are into Judaism, some aren't)

Was I asking that? Wait, do I have a double here who also post under my username asking trick questions? I regard that as dastardly!

But we seem to be back to something interesting: some Jews are *into Judaism*. But then some aren't. Does being a Jew depend on being *into Judaism*? Wait, what's a Jew? I'd have thought a Jew by definition would have to be 'into Judaism'. But I am learning so much here today! (Are you getting these answers from the Chat A!?!?)

Nah, since the menstrual cycles thing it's obvious the Chat AI is never wrong (but here I presume I could be).

When a Jew is no longer 'into Judaism' what becomes of that Jew? On what basis does he (or she) remain a Jew? If all Jews became 'not into' Judaism would they remain Jews?

So many questions!

Well finally, so Jew is not only considered by some DNA thang - it's whether they believe in at least some of the tenets of Judaism!

I think I might learn something today, this could be a good day.

Well - would you look at this below (from the no longer ever wrong Chat AI)!!

ME:- What is a Jew?

AI:- A Jew is a person who practices the religion of Judaism, which is based on the belief in one God and the adherence to religious laws and traditions as stated in the Torah. Jews also often have a strong sense of community and cultural identity. The term can also be used to refer to someone of Jewish descent or ethnicity, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[tillingborn]

An "Evolutionist" is not every denier of Creation, it's an indoctrinated adherent of the Darwinian narrative.

What is your story?

I don't believe you don't know the answers to those questions. If you didn't, it would mean you knew nothing about Darwin or evolution at all.

Again, you are not distinguishing between evolution and a theory about evolution, which "the Darwinian narrative" clearly is. That's why I asked for your story. So once more:
1 What is "the Darwinian narrative"?
2 Who is indoctrinating "Evolutionists"?
3 What do the indoctrinators gain?

[attofishpi]

So. How are we going Alexis re the below?

Most of them don't believe Jesus did as the Messiah was supposed to do (and was not in fact their Messiah from...dunno what? the Torah?) - Obviously overlooking the fact that their land of Israel was provided by the lovely Christian nation (that Jesus obviously set up as part of the master promise) - England - and is still protected by many predominantly Christian nations - ergo the Messiah did as promised.

A Jew who believes in Jesus is no longer a Jew but a Christian. Good work Atto!

True, the Orthodox Jewish notion of Moshiach is radically different from anything Christian so Jesus cannot be seen as that figure. Given what resulted to Judea (Exile) and Jewish experience in Europe at the hands of Christians, Jews don't have too many options left but to define Jesus Christ as a demon. And those associated with this figure as demonic. Within strictly Orthodox Judaism this, of course, defines what Jews at this level believe about both Jesus Christ and Christians.

No Christian did anything contrary to the teachings of Christ in Europe, or what did you have in mind?

No Orthodox Jew would ever say that Israel was 'provided' by England but only that Israel was given to Jews by god. This, and 'chosenness', are the two core pillars of Judaism. You have inadvertently done some stunning work! You seem capable of much more. Is it best to 1) keep the bottle corked, o r2) uncork it and proceed? What works best for you?

Well, the orthodox ones are the loons, so no point in arguing with them the veracity of what is the truth.

Option 2) please.

But you have encountered one non-minor problem. That is when we focus *within the narratives*. If you believe the traditional narratives then the Exile of Jews from Judea which, in Christian interpretation, resulted in Exile and the destruction of the former Jewish temple, then only god could restore the Jews to Israel in our present.

So does it follow that a) because there is a Jewish nation now reestablished in Judea that god did this? and b) is the god who did this the same Moshiach the Jews predict will come? But c) if the Jews are indeed in Israel (again) what then is the function of Moshaich since Israel is a fait accompli?

a) = correct b) = CAME ..btw, I think he spends most of his time in California these days) c) Well I hear He pots the white ball, so at least He doesnt cheat at pool. (oh I forgot, yes mission accomplished re somewhere for Jews to kip and stuff -- however, they should all now be Christians, including the rest of the infidels).

NB: All the above is thanks to the great Christian nation of England. (oh shit, and of course that Moshiach chap, Jesus)

[Alexis Jacobi]

1 What is "the Darwinian narrative"?

2 Who is indoctrinating "Evolutionists"?

3 What do the indoctrinators gain?

I should have asked Chat AI but here, I submit my own deficient ideas:

1) To define the narrative one must define why it is held. It has to do with “explanatory power”. Everyone knows that the Darwinian model is that in a primordial soup material elements combined through natural magic and life, and life’s striving arose. That’s it. An ultimate explanation. Nothing more needed. No creating or designing god required — or no need to contemplate one. Eyes kept on ‘the ground’ as it were.

But also: the ‘ears’ closed to any mystic-religious clap-trap. I.e. no longer believable religious/mythological explanations.

The Darwinian Narrative is as much about what it ceases to explain as it is what it explains.

2) Another question with an apparent answer but also a deeper answer needed. Thus the apparent and the non-apparent. Ultimately, it is self-indoctrination. More properly a refusal to accept an explanation that doesn’t explain. When the insufficiency of an explanatory model is realized (intuited) this calls forward those who rationalize what is sensed. Can’t due without a rational explanation! (Even a lunatic must ‘sound rational’ and as if he is ‘making sense’).

There has to be formulated then a counter-narrative to an explanation without (genuine) explanatory power. It could be mythically simplistic like a child’s story — or expounded with CS Lewis intelligence and including footnotes. But there must needs be one.

Evolutionists are counter-counter-indoctrinators. Upon them religionists project back on them what anti-religionists say of religionists: “You’ve turned Darwinianism into a superstitious quasi-religion. We are the true rationalists!”

3) The possibility of holding to a non-rational, intuited sense of what is true. It’s like a wedge holding open a door to now-suppressed modes of perception. It allows for a refined mysticism of real intellectual (assertive) content, or the crudest explanation imaginable: like that once man lived among dinosaurs or that the Ark really was real.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Unless I am wrong the above ‘explains’ Immanuel Can.

(Curiously science-method itself punctures science-certainty. And the new descriptive assertions/speculations begin to sound mystic.)

[Harbal]

1) To define the narrative one must define why it is held. It has to do with “explanatory power”. Everyone knows that the Darwinian model is that in a primordial soup material elements combined through natural magic and life, and life’s striving arose. That’s it. An ultimate explanation. Nothing more needed. No creating or designing god required — or no need to contemplate one. Eyes kept on ‘the ground’ as it were.

But also: the ‘ears’ closed to any mystic-religious clap-trap. I.e. no longer believable religious/mythological explanations.

The Darwinian Narrative is as much about what it ceases to explain as it is what it explains.

2) Another question with an apparent answer but also a deeper answer needed. Thus the apparent and the non-apparent. Ultimately, it is self-indoctrination. More properly a refusal to accept an explanation that doesn’t explain. When the insufficiency of an explanatory model is realized (intuited) this calls forward those who rationalize what is sensed. Can’t due without a rational explanation! (Even a lunatic must ‘sound rational’ and as if he is ‘making sense’).

There has to be formulated then a counter-narrative to an explanation without (genuine) explanatory power. It could be mythically simplistic like a child’s story — or expounded with CS Lewis intelligence and including footnotes. But there must needs be one.

Evolutionists are counter-counter-indoctrinators. Upon them religionists project back on them what anti-religionists say of religionists: “You’ve turned Darwinianism into a superstitious quasi-religion. We are the true rationalists!”

3) The possibility of holding to a non-rational, intuited sense of what is true. It’s like a wedge holding open a door to now-suppressed modes of perception. It allows for a refined mysticism of real intellectual (assertive) content, or the crudest explanation imaginable: like that once man lived among dinosaurs or that the Ark really was real.

I must admit, your writing style does have a superficial appearance of intellectual authority, but one need not scratch far beneath the surface in order to discover the absolute rubbish within.

[Belinda]

1) To define the narrative one must define why it is held. It has to do with “explanatory power”. Everyone knows that the Darwinian model is that in a primordial soup material elements combined through natural magic and life, and life’s striving arose. That’s it. An ultimate explanation. Nothing more needed. No creating or designing god required — or no need to contemplate one. Eyes kept on ‘the ground’ as it were.

But also: the ‘ears’ closed to any mystic-religious clap-trap. I.e. no longer believable religious/mythological explanations.

The Darwinian Narrative is as much about what it ceases to explain as it is what it explains.

2) Another question with an apparent answer but also a deeper answer needed. Thus the apparent and the non-apparent. Ultimately, it is self-indoctrination. More properly a refusal to accept an explanation that doesn’t explain. When the insufficiency of an explanatory model is realized (intuited) this calls forward those who rationalize what is sensed. Can’t due without a rational explanation! (Even a lunatic must ‘sound rational’ and as if he is ‘making sense’).

There has to be formulated then a counter-narrative to an explanation without (genuine) explanatory power. It could be mythically simplistic like a child’s story — or expounded with CS Lewis intelligence and including footnotes. But there must needs be one.

Evolutionists are counter-counter-indoctrinators. Upon them religionists project back on them what anti-religionists say of religionists: “You’ve turned Darwinianism into a superstitious quasi-religion. We are the true rationalists!”

3) The possibility of holding to a non-rational, intuited sense of what is true. It’s like a wedge holding open a door to now-suppressed modes of perception. It allows for a refined mysticism of real intellectual (assertive) content, or the crudest explanation imaginable: like that once man lived among dinosaurs or that the Ark really was real.

I must admit, your writing style does have a superficial appearance of intellectual authority, but one need not scratch far beneath the surface in order to discover the absolute rubbish within.

How do you find the patience to pay attention to the turgid stuff ?

[Harbal]

How do you find the patience to pay attention to the turgid stuff ?

I usually just skip through his output, and then home in on anything that might have entertainment potential, for closer investigation. You don't have to pay much attention to his stuff to realise it is mostly about avoidance and manipulation, but closer inspection reveals that it rarely has much meaning when viewed in the context of the real world.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do you find the patience to pay attention to the turgid stuff ?

Cranky today Belinda?

The answer to Harbal is that he doesn’t pay attention — except if there is an entertainment potential. He makes his position quite plain. And ‘inspires’ many.

[Guillermolis]

What is your story?

I don't believe you don't know the answers to those questions. If you didn't, it would mean you knew nothing about Darwin or evolution at all.

Again, you are not distinguishing between evolution and a theory about evolution, which "the Darwinian narrative" clearly is. That's why I asked for your story. So once more:
1 What is "the Darwinian narrative"?
2 Who is indoctrinating "Evolutionists"?
3 What do the indoctrinators gain?

Hi everyone. i would like to talk about the Theory of Evolution but searching within the forum I found the “Theory of Evolution, Perfect?” topic was locked many years ago.
I’m not a scientist and no learn about science as a main activity, but lately through the reading of three books, that gave to me the weak bases I have to face this matter, - “Conjuring the Universe: The Origens of the Laws of Nature”, Peter Atkins 2018, “Introduction of The Philosophy of the Religion” and mainly “The Strange Orders of the Things” António Damásio 2017, my mind had been concerned about the lakes and contradictions I think I discover in this theory.
My intention is to find people who have deeper knowledge of the theory and who are willing to answer some questions, maybe basic, I don't know, what I want to ask.
Can I count on any of you?
Thank you.

[attofishpi]

True, the Orthodox Jewish notion of Moshiach is radically different from anything Christian so Jesus cannot be seen as that figure.

I am still genuinely interested in this, why would an Orthodox Jew not consider that Jesus was Moshiach?

[Alexis Jacobi]

True, the Orthodox Jewish notion of Moshiach is radically different from anything Christian so Jesus cannot be seen as that figure.

I am still genuinely interested in this, why would an Orthodox Jew not consider that Jesus was Moshiach?

Numerous reasons. One, they do not conceive it possible that god could would or does incarnate into a human person. This idea is inherently Greek and pagan. To the orthodox but really to even marginal Jews the man Jesus was deluded about himself.

Two, Jesus opposed the entire construct that Judaism had become. He became an enemy of the state religion. He seemed to propose that ‘being a Jew’ in the established sense (i.e. seeing oneself as distinct and separate and exclusive) was counter to the will of god. Christian universalism was anathema to all that made a Jew a Jew.

Moshioch is not god incarnated into man but an exclusive savior of the (true) Jewish people with a specific historical mission: to reestablish in a final sense the original mission of the Jews as defined by the Prophets. This involves the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem and renewal of Judaic sacrificial rites. Planning for this is on-going now.

Jews who fall away from Orthodoxy in the strictest sense of Jewish mission, that is of gods mission for Jews (these are the same), thereby assimilate. Assimilation is death to that Jewish mission. So there is only one way to be a ‘real Jew’ and that is to re-assimilate with the belief and practice of genuine Jews (under god’s aegis).

Harbal, Belinda: Am I doing better or worse?

[Belinda]

How do you find the patience to pay attention to the turgid stuff ?

Cranky today Belinda?

The answer to Harbal is that he doesn’t pay attention — except if there is an entertainment potential. He makes his position quite plain. And ‘inspires’ many.

I wonder why you write as you often do. If you were more explicit, more concise, more lucid, you would allow many more people to understand you and pay attention to you.

[Belinda]

True, the Orthodox Jewish notion of Moshiach is radically different from anything Christian so Jesus cannot be seen as that figure.

I am still genuinely interested in this, why would an Orthodox Jew not consider that Jesus was Moshiach?

Numerous reasons. One, they do not conceive it possible that god could would or does incarnate into a human person. This idea is inherently Greek and pagan. To the orthodox but really to even marginal Jews the man Jesus was deluded about himself.

Two, Jesus opposed the entire construct that Judaism had become. He became an enemy of the state religion. He seemed to propose that ‘being a Jew’ in the established sense (i.e. seeing oneself as distinct and separate and exclusive) was counter to the will of god. Christian universalism was anathema to all that made a Jew a Jew.

Moshioch is not god incarnated into man but an exclusive savior of the (true) Jewish people with a specific historical mission: to reestablish in a final sense the original mission of the Jews as defined by the Prophets. This involves the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem and renewal of Judaic sacrificial rites. Planning for this is on-going now.

Jews who fall away from Orthodoxy in the strictest sense of Jewish mission, that is of gods mission for Jews (these are the same), thereby assimilate. Assimilation is death to that Jewish mission. So there is only one way to be a ‘real Jew’ and that is to re-assimilate with the belief and practice of genuine Jews (under god’s aegis).

Harbal, Belinda: Am I doing better or worse?

Good boy Alexis!