Are you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist?

[Alcon]

Atheist (2015)

What does 2015 have to do with anything?

Well there's the fact that believing in the impregnation of a virgin and her subsequent giving birth to God in the flesh who died and then rose from the dead and will be coming back at some point, in the *near future*, we swear! is sort of incompatible with modernity.

> Implying the next logical step after deciding Christianity is a fairytale is to become an atheist.

And the fact that "modernity" means anything, to boot.  Truth is truth, yesterday, today, and forever.  Jesus Christ is still Lord of all, and he WILL come back to judge the living and the dead in righteousness.  Those who will not repent will perish, unfortunately.

I don't understand why you type like that.  Who is teaching you that making flowery declarative sentences is going to change anyone's mind?  If you're not changing your mind, why do you make posts like that -- it is emotionally exciting for you?

[Alcon]

Atheist (2015)

What does 2015 have to do with anything?

Well there's the fact that believing in the impregnation of a virgin and her subsequent giving birth to God in the flesh who died and then rose from the dead and will be coming back at some point, in the *near future*, we swear! is sort of incompatible with modernity.

> Implying the next logical step after deciding Christianity is a fairytale is to become an atheist.

And the fact that "modernity" means anything, to boot.  Truth is truth, yesterday, today, and forever.  Jesus Christ is still Lord of all, and he WILL come back to judge the living and the dead in righteousness.  Those who will not repent will perish, unfortunately.

I don't understand why you type like that.  Who is teaching you that making flowery declarative sentences is going to change anyone's mind?  If you're not changing your mind, why do you make posts like that -- it is emotionally exciting for you?

Well, making "flowery [authoritative is a far better term] declarative sentences" is kind of my pastor's style, so I suppose you could say I picked it up from him.  I wasn't making in apologetic case, but I was simply saying that from a Christian perspective, the calendar year is irrelevant.  Technology could be 10 times more advanced than it is today, but that wouldn't change one iota of what God's word teaches.  That's the message I was trying to convey.  

Yeah, except you communicated a pretty simple logical concept ("moral truth isn't dependent on what time it is") and then added a bunch of fire-and-brimstone language about the consequences of disobeying moral truth that weren't relevant to original point, and are specific to your belief set.

It was like if I made the same point (morality isn't time-dependent) and then listed a bunch of felony crimes and then talked about how people who commit them might be raped in prison, or something.  It would be totally unnecessary to make my point.  It only serves to be intimidating for the other person, or emotionally exciting for me.  In that case, intimidation makes sense -- because my audience agrees that it's a potential consequence of committing a felony.  In this case, you're intimidating your audience with a consequence they don't even believe will occur.  If you're not trying to persuade them, and you're not being gleeful, what's the point?

That's why it's a little confusing why you're doing this.  It's not just in this thread, either.  You did the same thing in the thread about belief and logic, except it was even more unrelated there.  It may be that you're getting this from your pastor, but...if it's so "unfortunate," and you recognize it's not persuasive, why do you enjoy copying the behavior so much?

[Alcon]

So RFayette, while we're talking about this, you changed your signature to be the exact sort of stuff I'm asking about.  What is the point of this, if not to give yourself personal pleasure by non-persuasively intimidating people?

[Alcon]

I've never really understood the idea of identifying as non-religious but accepting that maternal rite (Judaism) or baptism somehow makes you a Jew or a Christian.  If you're not religious, why do you accept the authority of religious rites in dictating what religion you are?  That doesn't make sense.

(I'm not saying one can't be culturally Jewish or Christian, although that's not really a meaningful religious identification in my book...it's the "I don't believe it's true but I'm x because x religion says I am" that baffles me.)

[Alcon]

I've never really understood the idea of identifying as non-religious but accepting that maternal rite (Judaism) or baptism somehow makes you a Jew or a Christian.  If you're not religious, why do you accept the authority of religious rites in dictating what religion you are?  That doesn't make sense.

At that point it has become one's personal choice to identify that way, I'd say. Also, traditions (such as the tradition that one is a Jew if one's mother is; hard to disentangle "religion" and "tradition" here, but in my opinion the word "religion" doesn't accurately describe Judaism anyway) have social and cultural value apart from their religious importance. Even if people don't believe, they don't necessarily want to lose that. So many Jews go to synagogue on Yom Kippur and sometimes even keep the fast without believing in G-d.

You're mostly talking about cultural identification here, though, which I think is totally understandable -- whatever makes people happy.  But I've definitely met Jews who seem to believe that maternal rite is authoritative somehow, not just a something they choose to accept or that manifests as a cultural norm.  They seem to think it's objectively "true" for some reason, and this makes no sense at all to me...

[Alcon]

I'm respectfully having trouble understanding how what you're describing isn't completely compatible with the "culture" bucket...you've just indicated that Jews are an atomistic, heterogeneous culture (or, if you prefer, multiple cultures/subcultures).  OK, but so what?  A normative belief can exist between multiple different cultures, and it's possible for subcultures to exist under a banner "culture" but exhibit different traits.  The fact that there are multiple (sub)cultures that share a cultural trait does not mean that the trait isn't cultural.  It just means that the presence of that trait doesn't wholly define and distinguish the (sub)culture.

As far as I can tell, you basically are just arguing that Jewish identity is a cultural identification that isn't contingent on religious belief.  That's fine, and I'm aware.  (Obviously you know more about Judaism than I do, but I probably know more about Judaism than Christianity, tbh.)  The thing about culture is that it's a system of traditions and norms that, unless you grant it intrinsic authority for some reason, has no innate claim to authority.  That's my point -- it's not "true" in any sense besides it's something that people decide to participate in (or people around them try to pressure them into participating in).  And yet I often hear people say "I'm x even though I don't believe it and it's not important to me."  It's literally just applying a cultural norm you're not interested in to yourself because people who are interested in it say you should.  It makes no sense.

Also, this is 100% an aside, but "reject God"?  really, dude?  I assume you're probably using that as a shorthand for "fail to accept what I see as evident," but that's not what "rejection" means.  You're making it sound like atheists left-swipe God on Tinder or something.

[Alcon]

Sorry it took me so long to reply...

Hmmm, I still would not call it a culture with different subcultures, but I suppose one could look at it that way. However, it is not the Jewish way of looking at it, and if one seeks to understand why Jews do things, I think it makes more sense to try and look at their behavior through a Jewish "lens".

I understand your point, though. Of course Judaism has no "innate claim to authority" in the sense that no Jew is obliged under anything other than Jewish law to follow Jewish law, or even to identify as Jewish. However, even if one does not believe in G-d, that does not automatically mean one is not interested in all the other traditions or norms; indeed, if one says "I'm Jewish even though I don't believe in it" (I'm not talking about "cultural Christianity" now, as it is different and I don't care about it) and one still deems matrilineality and maybe Pesach or Yom Kippur relevant, it is likely that people are actually "interested", as you formulate it, in these traditions -- they don't believe in G-d, but they do think the traditions by themselves have some legitimate claim to authority.

I know that disbelief in God does not mean someone's not interested in the traditions or norms.  That's different from thinking they're "true."  I like to get a cinnamon roll with breakfast on Saturday but I don't think that's "true," and it would make sense for it to be any more "true" if I happened to be a former believer in a religion who attached moral significance to having cinnamon rolls with Saturday breakfasts.

Again, keep in mind that I'm not talking about people who enjoy traditions.  That's fine and makes total sense!  I'm talking about people who act like traditions are authoritative even though they believe in no source of authority or legitimacy and even though they don't enjoy the traditions -- and sometimes actively dislike them.  This makes no sense.

That makes sense. The Danish nation, for instance, has the right to decide who is part of the Danish nation, and it does not need religion for that. Likewise, the Jewish nation has decided that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish (apart from the recent situation regarding Reform shuls recognizing people whose father is Jewish as Jews, but not really relevant to my point), and even if one does not believe in G-d, one does not necessarily have to object to this. People actually do think such things are "true".

The problem with that analogy is that the disanalagous parts are all of the relevant parts.  Countries do, in fact, have authority, because of their monopoly of power over land and people.  There's no analagous sense of authority in what I'm challenging.  I can't think of a single reason for recognizing a state's formal authority over me that would also apply to a tradition.  The reasons we recognize state authority are totally inapplicable to what we're talking about here.  To be clear, if there were some differences, this analogy wouldn't fail, but it seems to be entirely different in relevant part.

It wasn't meant as something normative (or as "fail to accept what I see as evident"), just meant to say they don't believe in G-d. I could definitely see why you interpreted it differently (as something preachy or even condescending), but that wasn't my intention when I wrote it and that's also definitely not how I feel about it. To put it bluntly, I find it much more important that Jews stand with their fellow Jews in Israel than that they believe.

No worries.  I shouldn't have presumed that.  I guess it's basically meant to read as "rejecting [belief in] God."