My Headache with Christianity

[ideologyhunter]

First, I'm a devout atheist, and the Christian narrative is completely unpersuasive to me. So I don't really want to discuss it with a believer -- that would be an unproductive conversation. But every time I try to understand why the faithful believe, I come up against the Jewishness of Jesus and I just can't get past the nuttiness of worship involving a savior figure WHO ISN'T OF YOUR FAITH.
So, if I were a Christian, this first century god/man, whatever, would be my lord, master, savior; I'd want to emulate him. So why wouldn't I adopt Judaism? How does anything Paul say (from a resource of what appear to be visions or hallucinations) vacate the observation that Jesus was extremely ...Jewish??? Here's a partial list: being BORN A JEW, supposedly amazing the temple folk with his knowledge of Judaism as a child, quoting from a couple dozen OT books, apparently wearing ceremonial clothing ("hem of the garment"), telling people to consult their rabbi (in at least some translations), telling his disciples to witness only to Jews, telling his disciples they will reinstate the 12 tribes in the afterlife (even though, for one thing, this apparently gives Judas a role to play in heaven, and for another, Christians today don't seem to care about the 12 tribes project), apparently fulfilling the messiah business in the OT, sitting down to a Jewish ceremony the night before his execution (which makes it seem obvious that he followed Jewish dietary law -- which his followers today assume they are exempt from.) Then, as soon as he's executed, supposedly the faith goes out to everyone and no one needs to be Jewish anymore, and all the Jewish observances are non-binding. Except the savior didn't leave a record of saying that while he was traveling and preaching.
I'm sure I left out a number of telling points in my list. Anyone know of a book that follows this line of thought? (It's sort of covered in The Passover Plot, but that book is pretty flimsy overall.)

 

[Sarpedon]

A Jew can become a Christian. Those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah did. The ones that didn't, didn't. Jesus himself can be called a Jew who became a Christian, or could be called someone who transcends such petty religious labels.

What's the problem? There are so many good objections to be had to christianity, I fail to see why you would latch on what amounts to a petty semantic argument. The christian could say that Jesus obeyed those laws because he was conforming to the place and time of his ministry, and that the rules specific to Jews were thrown out when Jesus gave the command to 'preach to the Gentiles.' There's the modern 'Jews for Jesus' movement, who's members obey the dietary laws AND believe Jesus was the messiah. Why would the idea that Christians descended from Gentiles are exempt from the Jewish dietary and other misc laws be so hard to swallow?

 

[rousseau]

In Roman times when Jesus was born there were innumerable religious sects competing with each other. Christianity was a sect that emerged as a unique 'brand' of religion, and at the time there was debate about whether it was another form of judaism or a separate entity.

In those days such practice was normal, and those who believed in the Christian sect became Christians. So by late-antiquity standards your argument that 'Jesus was a Jew' doesn't actually hold water. At the time, he was a Christian, or at least his followers became known as Christians.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, it's not weird and contradictory to claim as your lord and master one who observed a completely different set of holy days, observances, and many, many laws? That if Jesus thought Jewish orthodoxy, practices, taboos, were binding, the Christian today doesn't have to? Sorry, I find that inexplicable. If Jesus returned, would he appear in a synagogue or a holy roller crib? My money's on the synagogue.

 

[rousseau]

No one here would claim that it's not contradictory, just within the confines of religious logic it's not. Within the confines of reality there are no less than 10 000 arguments that could be made as to why Christian theology is bunk, outside of the pieces of moral code that are unintentionally progressive.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, it's not weird and contradictory to claim as your lord and master one who observed a completely different set of holy days, observances, and many, many laws?

Well, many consider there to be a new covenant. Like a new contract. In order to prove you were afraid of the God, there used to be rules to be obeyed. Now there are different rules, building upon a new relationship.

Like when you're promoted out of the warehouse, up into the administration part of the building. There's a different dress code, different parking, different rules about the jokes you can tell your coworkers, and you're no longer apreciated if you always have a hammer in your belt. NOW they want to know if you have a pen.

But it's the same company. Just, now you're usually in fights with people who were hired specifically to be administrative weedjets, vice those who were promoted from within.

 

[braces_for_impact]

First, I'm a devout atheist, and the Christian narrative is completely unpersuasive to me. So I don't really want to discuss it with a believer -- that would be an unproductive conversation. But every time I try to understand why the faithful believe, I come up against the Jewishness of Jesus and I just can't get past the nuttiness of worship involving a savior figure WHO ISN'T OF YOUR FAITH.
So, if I were a Christian, this first century god/man, whatever, would be my lord, master, savior; I'd want to emulate him. So why wouldn't I adopt Judaism? How does anything Paul say (from a resource of what appear to be visions or hallucinations) vacate the observation that Jesus was extremely ...Jewish??? Here's a partial list: being BORN A JEW, supposedly amazing the temple folk with his knowledge of Judaism as a child, quoting from a couple dozen OT books, apparently wearing ceremonial clothing ("hem of the garment"), telling people to consult their rabbi (in at least some translations), telling his disciples to witness only to Jews, telling his disciples they will reinstate the 12 tribes in the afterlife (even though, for one thing, this apparently gives Judas a role to play in heaven, and for another, Christians today don't seem to care about the 12 tribes project), apparently fulfilling the messiah business in the OT, sitting down to a Jewish ceremony the night before his execution (which makes it seem obvious that he followed Jewish dietary law -- which his followers today assume they are exempt from.) Then, as soon as he's executed, supposedly the faith goes out to everyone and no one needs to be Jewish anymore, and all the Jewish observances are non-binding. Except the savior didn't leave a record of saying that while he was traveling and preaching.
I'm sure I left out a number of telling points in my list. Anyone know of a book that follows this line of thought? (It's sort of covered in The Passover Plot, but that book is pretty flimsy overall.)

When I was a Christian, I, and the Christians I knew explained this by basically saying that Jesus had to be Jewish in order to fulfill prophecy. Beyond that, not much is said regarding his ethnicity/religious persuasion. For some reason most Christians will never question, God has a chosen race of people. Why an all loving god would play favorites is stupid, yet most Christians accept this. Many Christians also think that America's job is to support Israel, so Israel can usher in the end of days. Personally, I think this is a way for American Christians to see themselves as the chosen people, the center of God's attention, rather than the Jews.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I'd like to add to my puzzlement the business that, however porous the line between Jew and gentile may have been in the first century, that line was absolutely cemented, Trump-style, once Christianity was dominant as a state religion -- and the gentile world had, what? -- ten centuries of increasingly violent antisemitism on its record.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why is that puzzling? The fact that most Jews didn't become Christians is an indictment of Christianity. So naturally, they blamed the Jews.

 

[Ramaraksha]

First, I'm a devout atheist, and the Christian narrative is completely unpersuasive to me. So I don't really want to discuss it with a believer -- that would be an unproductive conversation. But every time I try to understand why the faithful believe, I come up against the Jewishness of Jesus and I just can't get past the nuttiness of worship involving a savior figure WHO ISN'T OF YOUR FAITH.
So, if I were a Christian, this first century god/man, whatever, would be my lord, master, savior; I'd want to emulate him. So why wouldn't I adopt Judaism? How does anything Paul say (from a resource of what appear to be visions or hallucinations) vacate the observation that Jesus was extremely ...Jewish??? Here's a partial list: being BORN A JEW, supposedly amazing the temple folk with his knowledge of Judaism as a child, quoting from a couple dozen OT books, apparently wearing ceremonial clothing ("hem of the garment"), telling people to consult their rabbi (in at least some translations), telling his disciples to witness only to Jews, telling his disciples they will reinstate the 12 tribes in the afterlife (even though, for one thing, this apparently gives Judas a role to play in heaven, and for another, Christians today don't seem to care about the 12 tribes project), apparently fulfilling the messiah business in the OT, sitting down to a Jewish ceremony the night before his execution (which makes it seem obvious that he followed Jewish dietary law -- which his followers today assume they are exempt from.) Then, as soon as he's executed, supposedly the faith goes out to everyone and no one needs to be Jewish anymore, and all the Jewish observances are non-binding. Except the savior didn't leave a record of saying that while he was traveling and preaching.
I'm sure I left out a number of telling points in my list. Anyone know of a book that follows this line of thought? (It's sort of covered in The Passover Plot, but that book is pretty flimsy overall.)

When I was a Christian, I, and the Christians I knew explained this by basically saying that Jesus had to be Jewish in order to fulfill prophecy. Beyond that, not much is said regarding his ethnicity/religious persuasion. For some reason most Christians will never question, God has a chosen race of people. Why an all loving god would play favorites is stupid, yet most Christians accept this. Many Christians also think that America's job is to support Israel, so Israel can usher in the end of days. Personally, I think this is a way for American Christians to see themselves as the chosen people, the center of God's attention, rather than the Jews.

The times when these religions were born was different - they lived under Kings, Masters. If the King was a good king, the subjects had a good life, well, a relatively good life because life was pretty bad back in the day. A bad king, a bad master meant a hellish life

That is what we see today in Dictator ruled countries - for eg North Korea - those who kow-tow to this despot lead relatively good lives, the vast majority suffer

Heaven is like living in North Korea - only those who belong to x religion will be allowed in, everyone else is to be sent to Hell, just a Kings back in the day rewarded their most trusted loyalists and anyone suspected of treachery was put to death

Those are the ideas, sadly, still in currency today - Primitive and backward

Doesn't say much for Theists or for that matter Atheists either, that we fail to see these religions for what they are. There are rational explanations to such ideas

 

[iolo]

New beliefs have to start somewhere, and a run-down, intellectually-bankrupt slave society, devoted to fights between generals for power, needed something to put it back together. Judaism had hopeful qualities, but you had to accept the odd practices developed over a long tribal history. The Christian version offered universalism, a sort of early socialism and an ultimate egalitarianism that appealed hugely to slaves and women. It was a very big bet for Constantine, but if he could tame it, he was made, and Rome would last after all. Alas, he did.

 

[Ramaraksha]

New beliefs have to start somewhere, and a run-down, intellectually-bankrupt slave society, devoted to fights between generals for power, needed something to put it back together. Judaism had hopeful qualities, but you had to accept the odd practices developed over a long tribal history. The Christian version offered universalism, a sort of early socialism and an ultimate egalitarianism that appealed hugely to slaves and women. It was a very big bet for Constantine, but if he could tame it, he was made, and Rome would last after all. Alas, he did.

??? Are we talking about the same one that condemns Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - in fact, all non-christians to hell for the "crime" of religion or non? Where actions don't matter, just which God one prays to and which religion one belongs to? That one?

The one where one is not judged individually but as a collective? All christians get to enjoy, everyone else gets gas chambers? That one?

The one that says there is only one way, their way or else? In a democracy where freedom and free speech is celebrated? A communist/Dictator religion?

 

[iolo]

New beliefs have to start somewhere, and a run-down, intellectually-bankrupt slave society, devoted to fights between generals for power, needed something to put it back together. Judaism had hopeful qualities, but you had to accept the odd practices developed over a long tribal history. The Christian version offered universalism, a sort of early socialism and an ultimate egalitarianism that appealed hugely to slaves and women. It was a very big bet for Constantine, but if he could tame it, he was made, and Rome would last after all. Alas, he did.

??? Are we talking about the same one that condemns Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - in fact, all non-christians to hell for the "crime" of religion or non? Where actions don't matter, just which God one prays to and which religion one belongs to? That one?

The one where one is not judged individually but as a collective? All christians get to enjoy, everyone else gets gas chambers? That one?

The one that says there is only one way, their way or else? In a democracy where freedom and free speech is celebrated? A communist/Dictator religion?

I don't know - you seem to be. Where'd you find that lot in the New Testament? Stop playing McCarthy: it just prevents thought.

 

[Ramaraksha]

First, I'm a devout atheist, and the Christian narrative is completely unpersuasive to me. So I don't really want to discuss it with a believer -- that would be an unproductive conversation. But every time I try to understand why the faithful believe, I come up against the Jewishness of Jesus and I just can't get past the nuttiness of worship involving a savior figure WHO ISN'T OF YOUR FAITH.
So, if I were a Christian, this first century god/man, whatever, would be my lord, master, savior; I'd want to emulate him. So why wouldn't I adopt Judaism? How does anything Paul say (from a resource of what appear to be visions or hallucinations) vacate the observation that Jesus was extremely ...Jewish??? Here's a partial list: being BORN A JEW, supposedly amazing the temple folk with his knowledge of Judaism as a child, quoting from a couple dozen OT books, apparently wearing ceremonial clothing ("hem of the garment"), telling people to consult their rabbi (in at least some translations), telling his disciples to witness only to Jews, telling his disciples they will reinstate the 12 tribes in the afterlife (even though, for one thing, this apparently gives Judas a role to play in heaven, and for another, Christians today don't seem to care about the 12 tribes project), apparently fulfilling the messiah business in the OT, sitting down to a Jewish ceremony the night before his execution (which makes it seem obvious that he followed Jewish dietary law -- which his followers today assume they are exempt from.) Then, as soon as he's executed, supposedly the faith goes out to everyone and no one needs to be Jewish anymore, and all the Jewish observances are non-binding. Except the savior didn't leave a record of saying that while he was traveling and preaching.
I'm sure I left out a number of telling points in my list. Anyone know of a book that follows this line of thought? (It's sort of covered in The Passover Plot, but that book is pretty flimsy overall.)

When I was a Christian, I, and the Christians I knew explained this by basically saying that Jesus had to be Jewish in order to fulfill prophecy. Beyond that, not much is said regarding his ethnicity/religious persuasion. For some reason most Christians will never question, God has a chosen race of people. Why an all loving god would play favorites is stupid, yet most Christians accept this. Many Christians also think that America's job is to support Israel, so Israel can usher in the end of days. Personally, I think this is a way for American Christians to see themselves as the chosen people, the center of God's attention, rather than the Jews.

They lived under Kings - their ideas were shaped by the times they lived in. For eg we say Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, the ancients might say a super being is faster than a speedy horse - that was their idea of speed at that time

They didn't have democracy nor free expression - most peoples quality and quantity of life depended on the local King. He was the law and yes he played favorites. Master is always right - it is not what you and i think is right and wrong but what Master thinks. A mass murderer would go free is the King/Master said so, and a good man might be put to death

You find such ideas stupid because you live in different times - these religions are stuck, primitive and backward - you can see that in islamic countries where they seem to run back to primitive times because they find modern ideas too scary. Today you can rail against the sitting president, nothing will happen to you, back then say something against the King and you got ready to face jail or worse

I share your frustration - the continuation of primitive ideas - millions of bright people simply blinded by the idea of an easy life in heaven and never questioning these primitive ideas is frustrating

 

[Ramaraksha]

??? Are we talking about the same one that condemns Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - in fact, all non-christians to hell for the "crime" of religion or non? Where actions don't matter, just which God one prays to and which religion one belongs to? That one?

The one where one is not judged individually but as a collective? All christians get to enjoy, everyone else gets gas chambers? That one?

The one that says there is only one way, their way or else? In a democracy where freedom and free speech is celebrated? A communist/Dictator religion?

I don't know - you seem to be. Where'd you find that lot in the New Testament? Stop playing McCarthy: it just prevents thought.

Yes keep living in ignorance? Are you saying you have never heard of christians saying there is only one way, their way? Condemning everyone else to hell? Never? "I will pray for you"? How is that not collective judgement?

Cheap game of quoting a book - ignoring the reality of what happens in real life? Same as muslims who keep taking part of the koran and saying Islam doesn't say this or that, while ignoring other parts, the hate and mass killings in their countries

- - - Updated - - -

??? Are we talking about the same one that condemns Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - in fact, all non-christians to hell for the "crime" of religion or non? Where actions don't matter, just which God one prays to and which religion one belongs to? That one?

The one where one is not judged individually but as a collective? All christians get to enjoy, everyone else gets gas chambers? That one?

The one that says there is only one way, their way or else? In a democracy where freedom and free speech is celebrated? A communist/Dictator religion?

I don't know - you seem to be. Where'd you find that lot in the New Testament? Stop playing McCarthy: it just prevents thought.

The argument is easily settled - are all good people invited into Heaven? Or only Christians? Is Jesus the only way or other ways quite acceptable? Are people seen as individuals - defined by their character and conduct or by religion?

 

[Malintent]

In the obscure island of Saba, many natives revere the Jewish people as a sacred, "chosen" group. I visited there with my wife, and when they found out that she was Jewish (just culturally - but we didn't mention that), we started receiving invitations to people's houses for dinner... and on such a small island, word travels fast... they all but cheered us in the streets when we walked by. It was a little insane, actually.
they are all very religious Christians.. and don't have a ton of tourism... but man, do they love the Jews like they are Jesus' grandparents.

 

[bilby]

Back in the 1890s, there was just one game called 'Rugby'*, and the rules were laid down by a committee known as the Rugby Football Union.

However, a number of clubs, particularly in the north of England, felt that the rules limiting payments to players for lost wages on match days should be relaxed. These clubs had many players who worked in mills and mines, and for whom weekend overtime pay was an important source of income; The Rugby Football Union, however, was dominated by representatives from white-collar backgrounds, for whom working on a weekend was not common nor expected, and they felt that paying players cash to participate was contrary to the noble ideals of their sport.

The northern clubs decided to form their own governing body, and to run a separate competition involving only those clubs that were prepared to accept the idea of player payments, and so there were now two separate governing bodies for the same identical sport, with the only difference between them being whether they paid players for their time or not.

Of course, as time went on, suggestions from players and officials on how to improve the sport were considered by the two separate governing bodies, and as the two committees were not required to consult with each other, different changes were adopted (or rejected) by the two. Today, Rugby League and Rugby Union are very different sports - they don't even have the same number of players per team - and an understanding of one is of little help in grasping the rules of the other. It is obvious that Rugby League has shared roots with Rugby Union, but it is equally obvious that they are not the same game - they are played on a similar pitch, but are as different as checkers is from chess. (Ironically, one area where they no longer differ is player payments; The Rugby Union finally decided to allow such payments in 1995 - almost exactly a century after the original schism over the issue).

Judaism and Christianity are a similar story. They started out as one set of rules, but as the people making the rules were no longer the same, they have diverged over time. Of course, they both claim to be unchanging and the unwavering word of God; But anyone with half a brain can see that that's not true. When you consider the changes in the two Rugby Football codes in just 100 years, the differences accumulated over 2,000 years between Christianity and Judaism are really quite unremarkable.










*Of course, Rugby Football and Association Football had originated as the same sport, until they had a schism in the 1860s over the questions of to what degree players should be permitted to use their hands, and the acceptability of "hacking" (kicking an opponent in the shins). The history of the various codes of Football, including Irish/Gaelic, Australian, American and Canadian rules football as well as the two Rugby codes and Association football (soccer), is remarkably similar to the history of religion, with schisms, doctrinal disputes and arguments (sometimes violent) about what the rules should be, and who should have the authority to enforce them, leading to the variety and diversity we see today - a diversity in which each sect firmly avows that they are the one true guardian of the 'right' way of doing things.