|
On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote:
Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures). If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search.
All Jews (excluding conversions) would be able to trace their lineage to Abraham, they still reside in the same land, they still speak and write the same language. The Bible's Old Testament is their religion and history.
|
On August 18 2009 00:35 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote:
Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense? The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament. If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search.
Yeah, Jews use the Tanakh (in tandem with Rabbinic writings and oral tradition). But was Judaism birthed by the Tanakh?
|
On August 18 2009 00:39 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 00:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote:
Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense? The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament. If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search. Yeah, Jews use the Tanakh (in tandem with Rabbinic writings and oral tradition). But was Judaism birthed by the Tanakh?
Are you seriously going back and forth with me over semantics? Go away.
|
Semantics? No, I'm asserting that what you said was just plain wrong.
|
On August 18 2009 00:46 Mindcrime wrote:
Semantics? No, I'm asserting that what you said was just plain wrong.
They were Israelites, not Jews. Judaism/Jew wasn't a term adopted until MUCH later. So, yes, it's semantics.
|
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
|
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
|
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever named "Judaism" in English.
|
On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics
Semantics? One is the opposite of the other.
|
On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
|
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
|
On August 18 2009 01:16 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics
Making shit up
|
On August 18 2009 01:20 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:16 EchOne wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x. Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
I'm sorry, my statement was overreaching and wrong. The difference between the two assertions is logical, but semantics can produce contention over their truth values. I agree that your contention with Mindcrime in this thread is based in semantics.
Anyways, unfortunate thread derail. I actually wouldn't have minded studying about the Bible's consequences on Western culture in High School, as I was often found bemused at the Biblical references that were legion in Western literature. Really most Biblical references in Western literature reinforce universal themes, so comprehending them can be useful to fully appreciating someone's work.
I personally find it inconvenient and presumptuous of authors to intertwine religious themes with universal ones, but such is reality and it isn't my business to spurn their methods of expression.
EDIT: To actually express my position on the law... I think it's fine. My college is a public institution and it offers education on religions and their ramifications with no qualms. I believe argument is better placed over more material issues such as Health Care, Finance, Energy, etc.
|
The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say
hahaha
Anyways, I'm pretty sure a large portion of Austin is going to throw a fit.
|
On August 18 2009 02:02 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say hahaha Anyways, I'm pretty sure a large portion of Austin is going to throw a fit.
We can hope 
|
On August 17 2009 19:47 NExUS1g wrote:
I think that children are Christian because they grow up in a Christian household. Children are still Christian even though it's currently not taught in schools because their parents get them up on Sunday morning and take them to Church.
well, i grew up in a christian houshold, and i can tell you that that DOES NOT make you a christian.
i am a christian, and i was exposed to it because of my parents, but that isn't the same thing. definatly a choice i made. i'll not go into religious detail unless someone forces me. 
i know many people who convert to christianity, and many people who are raised christian and go away from it. this law is simply about raising awarness about the religious minority in the us. are you all really scared that kids are gonna start following a religion because their TEACHERS tell them too? since when has that ever happened?
|
On August 18 2009 02:15 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 19:47 NExUS1g wrote:
I think that children are Christian because they grow up in a Christian household. Children are still Christian even though it's currently not taught in schools because their parents get them up on Sunday morning and take them to Church. well, i grew up in a christian houshold, and i can tell you that that DOES NOT make you a christian. i am a christian, and i was exposed to it because of my parents, but that isn't the same thing. definatly a choice i made. i'll not go into religious detail unless someone forces me. i know many people who convert to christianity, and many people who are raised christian and go away from it. this law is simply about raising awarness about the religious minority in the us. are you all really scared that kids are gonna start following a religion because their TEACHERS tell them too? since when has that ever happened?
You're taking this out of context, unfortunately. This is as opposed to children becoming Christian because they're being taught the Bible in school.
Their teachers aren't telling them to follow a religion in this allowance. The Bible is being covered in a secular, historic fashion and in no way religious.
Do you think Christianity is a religious minority in the U.S.?
|
yeah. i recon there are more people who are not christian than are, hence the religious people are in the minority, (not saying it is a minority religion)
as to the rest.... i'm confused what the objection is about, i thought everyones problem with this law, was that somehow people were being indoctrinated into christianity....
i was replying to your post about only christian children learning about christianity.. ah well, i'm lost now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
