stu:
I was talking in regard to the Judeo Christian religionist in the context of 'Christ and dying for sin' etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"judeo christian"???
what, now you're deliberately trying to insult me?
Now that is plain silly. Just why the hell would that insult you !!
first
there is no such thing as a "judeo christian religionist" - judaism and c'ianity do not share any more core beliefs with each other than they share with any other major belief system.
They SHARE the same core God of the old testement. If there is another God of the old testament perhaps you may enlighten me to what that is, apart from another new spin off of an original God idea, I know of none. They share a load of core religious history!
second,
"judeo" in the context of "christ" makes no sense whatsoever. "christ", "dying for sins", etc are completely christian concepts and 100% anathema to judaism.
I didn't TELL you to, or even suggest you should, accept christian
as a part of judaism. So what's the point in suggesting I did. It's easy to read on here what you have just said is nonsense. But it might have been a little more prudent to ask me first off what I meant by the term rather than assuming you knew what I meant. You have not so far been able to follow my drift in context to anything I have been talking of.
Arguing that Judeo Christian is a legitimate description has no connection to the matter ofmy statement
It is the religionist who demands one true God, no arguments...
third,
if you insist on linking the two faiths like this, "christo jewish" is (ever so slightly) less inappropriate.
I dont see why. Jewish Christo might be more relative to the order of things, but I do not see any reason you have yet put forward as to why Judeo christian should not be a term suitable for expressing two faiths connected historically . But this still has nothing to to with the substantiation or rebuttal of my statement. It is altogether a separate matter .
a religionist by definition, would be someone who expresses devotion to a deity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are confusing the general with the specific: some - many - Jews do indeed believe in "one g-d". what all Jews do NOT believe is that belief in one g-d is necessary for anybody to live a moral life or to achieve righteousness. belief in g-d is a personal choice for each Jew and not mandated by Judaism. by the definition above a Jew could be a "religionist" but Judaism is not a "religion" - and that makes no sense.
I am confusing no such things for the very good reason I did not say that,... read again. I stated clearly my definition for religionist as those who expresses devotion to a deity. I did not say whether it was necessary to do that for a moral life or for any other reason.
The very fact that a religionist manifests devotion to a deity makes them a religionist. Nothing else..morallity, decency not in question ....
expresses devotion to a deity, that's all.
I really do think you have a big unconnect here with "
some - many - Jews do indeed believe in "one g-d" .....and ....."
what all Jews do NOT believe is that belief in one g-d is necessary for anybody to live a moral life or to achieve righteousness.
I never asked you to make that comparison so why did you ??
by the definition above a Jew could be a "religionist" but Judaism is not a "religion" - and that makes no sense.
Right so a Jew can be a religionist, fine.
"Judaism is not a "religion" "... may well make no sense, I never even said it was a religion, but you have, then it is your own no-sense... not mine!
oy. i wonder if you realize just how c'ian a viewpoint you yourself are arguing from? Judaism doesn't "tell others" what to believe. why should it? it is a fundamental tenet of Judaism that each of the "70 nations" (allegorical for all non-jews) have their own path and must find that path on their own. Jews do not proslytize - no need to convert because it will not bring you closer to "salvation". this is also true of hinduism and buddhism and many many other major faiths
Look , I never said Jews tell others what to believe . I said It is the religionist who demands one true God.. the religionist expresses devotion to a deity,...
now you will tell me Jews who are religionists (those who expresses devotion to a deity) do not believe in one true deity G_d or God or whatever? What?? really??
Is it taht I used the word
demands that is bothering you. Do you need me to define the context I used the word ?
The remainder of my quote was addressed in context to the christian religionists of which I was referring to anyway re Doubters Christ and sin thing. Nothing hard to understand about this, so what's to be offended about ??... already!
you are de facto defining "religionist" as evangelical c'ian. what you describe as "religionist" applies only to aggressive c'ianity and no other sub-faith on earth. maybe marginally, to islam. but by your definition hinduis, buddhism, taoism, confucism, etc etc etc - none of the billions and billions of their adherents qualify as "religionists" as they do not meet any of your criteria.
No I am not defining religionists as any such thing but what I was referring to, in contaxt with, was the Christ and sin thingy.
But now you are drifting toward what I said (hooray) and the context within which I said it. All of the billions and billions are within that category IF THEY EXPRESS DEVOTION TO A DEITY then they are religionist. Religionists BELIEVE in one God otherwise it is not
A DIETY
you are defining the subset to match your argument, rather than fitting your argument to match the broad definition. what's the point? if you have an issue with a segment of c'ianity, then why not name your concern for what it is and use more specific language than "religionist" which is bound to needlessly upset people?
No that's what I think you are doing , stating what the subset definitions are yourself , then saying I stated them.
For example...
Why should I fit my argument to match a broad definition, when I have made a valid and legitimate specific definition???
If you had bothered to enter the argument I was putting to Doubter you would have seen I was referring to a specific X'ian assertion he had made.
Just why the bloddy hell should the word religionist uspset anyone??? Is it that you do not like to be considered as one, or is that you are not a religionist? But how would that upset you. If it does, are you sure you should be entering into such conversations in the first place !!
