convert to judaism?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
martha said:


And this is the difference between those who believe and those who don't.

Those who believe don't require proof, and those who require proof won't believe.

That is true.
 
Angela Harlem said:
If it were ever proved that Jesus was just a man, but a man with great ideals, would your view change much? Ie, no immaculate conception, no son of God, no rising from the dead, etc.

Well, it won't be proven, but if it ever were, you bet that would change my view. There are plenty of wise men in this world. I don't worship any of them. If Christ were just a man, I wouldn't worship him.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Well, it won't be proven, but if it ever were, you bet that would change my view. There are plenty of wise men in this world. I don't worship any of them. If Christ were just a man, I wouldn't worship him.



are you worshipping Christ the man, or Christ as the embodiment of the divine?

let's say that he were totally human -- no immacuate conception, no rising from the dead -- but he got the ideas right, that his ideas about God/life/death/how to live/who we are/why we are here/etc.

would that be worthy of worship? not the man, but what the man represented?
 
Irvine511 said:




are you worshipping Christ the man, or Christ as the embodiment of the divine?

let's say that he were totally human -- no immacuate conception, no rising from the dead -- but he got the ideas right, that his ideas about God/life/death/how to live/who we are/why we are here/etc.

would that be worthy of worship? not the man, but what the man represented?

I'm worshipping Christ, the embodiment of God.

Bono is a great person, who helps an untold number of people. I don't worship the lindness or the ideas that Bono represent. But I do worship the one whom Bono represents; the person whom Bono represents is Jesus.
 
80sU2isBest said:


I'm worshipping Christ, the embodiment of God.

Bono is a great person, who helps an untold number of people. I don't worship the lindness or the ideas that Bono represent. But I do worship the one whom Bono represents; the person whom Bono represents is Jesus.



but what if he weren't the embodiment of God, but he got the whole cosmic order of the universe right? i'm posing a hypothetical here.

i don't think that bono thinks he represents jesus, though. i think he tries to live up to certain standards, but as a representative of jesus ... not so sure.
 
Irvine511 said:




but what if he weren't the embodiment of God, but he got the whole cosmic order of the universe right? i'm posing a hypothetical here.

I don't really know how to answer that except to say that I worship the trinity, and the trinity alone. No good men or good ideas are worthy of worship.

Irvine511 said:

i don't think that bono thinks he represents jesus, though. i think he tries to live up to certain standards, but as a representative of jesus ... not so sure.

The Bible teaches that all Christians are representatives of Christ. This is mainly because the Holy Spirit lives in us. Whether I am a good representative or a poor representative is up to me and my choice of whether to let the Holy Spirit work through me or to live for myself and by my own power.
 
Last edited:
You know guys, I don't think this is at all the discussion edgeboy intended to start.
 
threads evolve and shoot off on tangents more often than not in fym. they dont need closing or merging or splitting. you'll give yourself and everyone else a migraine if you try and keep a reign on them. like conversations in real life, they're somewhat organic. it seems a few of us are enjoying this. i find it particularly interesting due to my vehement dispassion for christianity, but some odd interest in judaism.

it's all just learning, isn't it.
 
Angela Harlem said:
threads evolve and shoot off on tangents more often than not in fym. they dont need closing or merging or splitting. you'll give yourself and everyone else a migraine if you try and keep a reign on them. like conversations in real life, they're somewhat organic. it seems a few of us are enjoying this. i find it particularly interesting due to my vehement dispassion for christianity, but some odd interest in judaism.

it's all just learning, isn't it.

Yolland didn't say anything about closing or merging or splitting this thread. We know that thread sometimes become a bit derailed from their original topic, and she was merely reminding people what the original topic was. I saw it as more of a nudge of encouragement to perhaps get back on topic and, if you wish to continue discussing other things further, perhaps beginning a new thread just to keep everything organized.
 
martha said:


And this is the difference between those who believe and those who don't.

Those who believe don't require proof, and those who require proof won't believe.

Technically, I think this is true. But I often find something else at work. I'd be really interested to find out if there are people who do not believe who have the attitude of "Wow, I would love to believe. It sounds great, it sounds wonderful. I'd jump at it in a second, but. . .there's no proof, so unfortunately, I just can't." It may be out there but I haven't yet encountered it.

What I do see is that coupled with unbelief is the sense that belief (i.e. God, religion etc, whatever) is a horrible thing that holds zero appeal to the unbeliever. Which leads me to believe that it's not just a dispassionate acceptance that "the evidence isn't there" but a more passionate aversion to faith. And as I said before as I listen to those who do not believe describe what they understand God and faith to be about, I can't really blame them for not believing.

I would also add that believers do have proof of a sort (though not in the scientific sense)--the proof of their own experiences. While that may be invalid from a strictly scientific point of view, scientific proof is not the be all and end all. After all, there's no scientific proof that I love my wife or aspire to be writer either. Those things are all personal, subjective experiences and yet they're pretty damn important to my life. My faith is the same way. At the end of my life the things that are scientifically provable (with the exception of my life and death itself) will probably carry a lot less weight than the impossible-to-quantify aspects of life like the relationships I've had, the joy I've experienced and so on.

Perhaps Tom Petty was right when he sang that "You believe what you want to believe."

So I might rephrase the quote this way: "Those who believe do not require scientific proof as a basis for belief. Those who require scientific proof are not really interested in believing anyway and are happy to let the absence of scientific proof stand as an obstacle to belief."

But maybe I'm wrong. I'd be glad to hear about it.

Sorry, Yolland. I tried to think of a way to tie it back to Judaism but I couldn't. Let me try this: Perhaps the same dynamic is at work in abandoning one relgious faith for another rather than for unbelief. It's not so much that the old faith didn't work as it didn't work for us. How's that? :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:

but what if he weren't the embodiment of God, but he got the whole cosmic order of the universe right? i'm posing a hypothetical here.
I can't say it better than C. S. Lewis, so here are his words:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic ‑on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑ or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse.

Then Lewis adds:

You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
 
INDY500 said:

I can't say it better than C. S. Lewis, so here are his words:




yes, i understand that, and it is a good point, but we only have as record what other people have said that Jesus said. there were no tape recorders back then. no camcorders. we do not have transcripts.

so, it's more accurate to say that the bible says that jesus said that he was the son of god, end of story. and not "jesus said that ..."
 
Irvine511 said:




yes, i understand that, and it is a good point, but we only have as record what other people have said that Jesus said. there were no tape recorders back then. no camcorders. we do not have transcripts.

so, it's more accurate to say that the bible says that jesus said that he was the son of god, end of story. and not "jesus said that ..."

But those same other people who wrote the Bible would be dead-on--based on the hypothetical scenario--in terms of good teachings/how to live, etc. They would have correctly quoted Jesus on his teachings but misquoted him on his claims is what you're suggesting? Or Jesus said none of it (or didn't even exist as A_W posits) and it was ALL made up by the Bible writers? In which case, everything that Lewis said applies to Jesus now applies to those who wrote about him.
 
The jews have been talking about the coming messiah hundreds of years before christ exsisted. If the jews truly thought christ was the one why did only twelve disciples follow him and why did they wait like 60 years after jesus died or "floated into heavan" to write something down about him? They didn't seem to be enthusiastic about him.
 
maycocksean said:


But those same other people who wrote the Bible would be dead-on--based on the hypothetical scenario--in terms of good teachings/how to live, etc. They would have correctly quoted Jesus on his teachings but misquoted him on his claims is what you're suggesting? Or Jesus said none of it (or didn't even exist as A_W posits) and it was ALL made up by the Bible writers? In which case, everything that Lewis said applies to Jesus now applies to those who wrote about him.



so is this a case for taking the bible literally? for taking jesus's words verbatum?

i don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing argument. it seems to me that what Lewis is saying (and, to a lesser extent, Bono) is something that appears to be enlightened and wonderfully clarifying, but is really much more problematic than it initially seems.
 
Irvine511 said:




so is this a case for taking the bible literally? for taking jesus's words verbatum?

i don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing argument. it seems to me that what Lewis is saying (and, to a lesser extent, Bono) is something that appears to be enlightened and wonderfully clarifying, but is really much more problematic than it initially seems.

UIrvine, I have a question for you. How do you decide what you wnat to believe about Jesus? How do you decide whether to believe that he said he was the Son Of God or not?

The books of Matthew and John were written by 2 of Jesus's disciples; they walked and talked with him. Mark was probably written by John Mark, who was not a disciple but was a few years younger than the disciples and actually spent a deal of time with them.

To me, those three men seem to be much more credible witnesses of what Jesus may have said than other, non-Biblical writers.
 
80sU2isBest said:


UIrvine, I have a question for you. How do you decide what you wnat to believe about Jesus? How do you decide whether to believe that he said he was the Son Of God or not?

The books of Matthew and John were written by 2 of Jesus's disciples; they walked and talked with him. Mark was probably written by John Mark, who was not a disciple but was a few years younger than the disciples and actually spent a deal of time with them.

To me, those three men seem to be much more credible witnesses of what Jesus may have said than other, non-Biblical writers.



i use reasoning and critical analysis skills i acquired in college, and i am suspicious of any sort of established doctrine. this doesn't mean it is "wrong," but more that notions of "right" or "wrong" (or, better, "true" or "false") aren't really meaningful when we're talking about this stuff. i think humans don't do well with ambiguity, we don't do well with nuance and shades of grey and determining what is and what isn't important, so we create absolutes for ourselves. either something is, or it isn't. either it's one way, or another. and i don't think reality is like that.

it seems logical, to me, to understand that Mark and John were starting a religion. it makes sense to me that they had a brand to sell. it makes sense to me that no one is going to remember someone's precise words, but rather the gist of what someone is saying. it makes sense to me that the message is more important than the messenger (and i think Jesus would agree, though it does make sense that the message means nothing if the messenger isn't who he says he is ... though i don't know if that's the only way it makes sense).

it simply doesn't seem logical that notions of an afterlife are exclusive to those who believe in Jesus, but not to those who don't who by no fault of their own could never be Christian, because of geography, culture, or their personal constitutions. Buddhism makes far, far more sense to me, for example, than Christianity. i think it's absurd for Christians to think that they are possessed of privileged knowledge that others don't see, or that they "get" something that others don't.

however, the idea that you "get" something that others don't goes back precisely to the branding of a religion -- how authoritative is an institution and thought system going to be if it doesn't proclaim exclusivity? if it says, "well, many paths to the same place"? how much Coke are you going to sell if you say, "Coke is good, but some people like Pepsi, and there's also Sprite if you don't feel like a Cola, and Fanta is great in the summer"?

and i also think that understanding religion -- all religions -- as very human thought systems doesn't necessarily destroy the message behind most religions. i had a discussion over the weekend with my friend's wife who was once very religious, but she got sick of people using Christianity to drive wedges between people. we had a great, deep conversation, and she though that what religion should do, and what all religions can do, is reveal -- through the mechanisms of culture, and religion is an expression of culture as much as anything else -- our common human condition. that you and i and the leper in Calcutta and Cameron Diaz and the Myan Indian are all made from the same stuff, and come from the same place, and will one day return to that same place, and that we are all connected. and how dare people use religion to separate us from each other, to use it as a tool of exclusivity, when it should be a way to culturally explore the glue that holds us all together -- the terrible, agonizing paradox of the human condition (we are born to die), and the possible way out of this paradox (where we all go when we die, back to the fabric from which we were originally cut in all our unique shapes and sizes).

and i think Christianity, and the "Jesus message," as i understand it, agree with this. i understand the claims of exclusivity. it does make logical sense. but it doesn't make any emotional sense, and to me, it smells of branding.

but that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, back to conversion. For any of you that know,
I understand you choose a hebrew name in the conversion process and I was wondering is that name only used in the jewish community or do you actually change your birth name?

Also, this may be a dumb question but it seems to me that jews have a much closer connection with israel than christians why is that?
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:

it seems logical, to me, to understand that Mark and John were starting a religion. it makes sense to me that they had a brand to sell. it makes sense to me that no one is going to remember someone's precise words, but rather the gist of what someone is saying. it makes sense to me that the message is more important than the messenger (and i think Jesus would agree, though it does make sense that the message means nothing if the messenger isn't who he says he is ... though i don't know if that's the only way it makes sense).

This is the part I want to address first. I am very hungry, so I'll limit it to this for now.

As you know, the desciples are said to have seen Jesus alive after his death. The disciple knew that this happened, or they knew that it didn't happen. They went around speading the Gospel, and part of that Gospel was that he was resurrected and they saw him. 9 of the disciples died as martyrs, in the cause of the news they preached. It is unknown how one of them died, Judas hung himself, and John the Beloved died in exile (if he was indeed John the Revelator, as many scholars think he was).

Here's the question: would you die in the cause of "starting a religion" or "selling a brand" that you knew was a lie?
 
i hope you had a good feed

80sU2isBest said:


This is the part I want to address first. I am very hungry, so I'll limit it to this for now.

As you know, the desciples are said to have seen Jesus alive after his death. The disciple knew that this happened, or they knew that it didn't happen. They went around speading the Gospel, and part of that Gospel was that he was resurrected and they saw him. 9 of the disciples died as martyrs, in the cause of the news they preached. It is unknown how one of them died, Judas hung himself, and John the Beloved died in exile (if he was indeed John the Revelator, as many scholars think he was).

Here's the question: would you die in the cause of "starting a religion" or "selling a brand" that you knew was a lie?

because of my background
I was brought up to believe these same things

I was taught and I memorized these stories before I could even evaluate them

Why didn't Jesus walk out of the cave
go back up on the Mount and give us
the Sermon II
and then go about the rest of his life?


The only so-called record of his reappearance is from a handful of his supporters that had a vested interest in keeping the story going


It is more probable that Lazarus came back, at least he lived the rest of his days and did not disappear after a few days with only his family saying he had been back


there are more people alive today that will swear they have seen Elvis Presley than the small number that claim Jesus reappeared?

just some things to think about

I was dating a Buddhist that was raised over seas and unfamiliar with Christianity.

When I explained it to her
she said, "Wow, Jesus came back alive and everyone saw that?

I said, "No just a few of his followers"

Then she said, "Did he hide the rest of his life?"
 
"Did he hide the rest of his life?" Exactly.:wink:
Gosh, I don't ever try to cause conflict with anyone but christianity is so obviously false to me. If you think about it logically and honestly for about five seconds you realize it's just not true. I wish it was but that doesn't mean I through away my brain and not think it through you know.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Well, it won't be proven, but if it ever were, you bet that would change my view. There are plenty of wise men in this world. I don't worship any of them. If Christ were just a man, I wouldn't worship him.

I think I understand this, but perhaps not. I get the bit about there being plenty of wise men in the world, and agree with that, however aren't the principles and tenets etc which Jesus promoted a bit more than all of that? Does he really have to be more than human for it to be worth dedicating your life and entire beliefs to?

I guess...it would mean that this whole caper is then built on false pretenses, but they aren't bad false pretenses. The beliefs you could still hold, right? Not about Jesus anymore, but the things he tried to teach and that religion has passed on.
:hmm:
 
martha said:
Reason is different than "logic" and "honesty."

Actually that's false. You can't have reason without logic and you can't have honesty without reason.
 
My point is this: Judaism and Christianity each have their flaw and benefits. If you've looked at Christianity and found it flawed for you, fine. I have as well. But to dismiss it as illogical and dishonest because it doesn't work for you is a bit of a stretch. There are those who have examined Judiasm as well and found it flawed.

I'm often guilty of questioning Christianity and finding it extrememly flawed, but I my argument is usually more with Christians that with Christianity.

For you to be so flip about Christianity being dismissed after "five seconds" of thought is pushing it. Isn't it more reasonable to simply realize that it's not your path?
 
Back
Top Bottom