I'd better save this admission before you realize what you've done and it disappears forever down an Orwellian memory hole!
"Your people" did not proselytize either as they do today. That is something of a much more recent origin, and most of it is in already Christian countries! Duh! Few and far in between is spreading the gospel in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where heads tend to fly off the shoulders for something like that.
Actually, they always proselytized, but what they recognize as "adult conversion to chr*stianity" (the "new birth") is recognized by you and most people as a "rite of passage." "Born-again" parents who raise their kids to believe everything that they do still have to "convert" them once they reach the "age of reason." The whole idea of the "new birth" is to provide an adult conversion experience to people who have never had to be converted to chr*stianity intellectually. And btw, they "steal sheep" from each other (Baptist, Church of Chr*st, Pentecostal) for the simple reason that each one believe it is the "one true religion." That's what you do when you believe you're the "one true religion" and you're not physically afraid to do so. You try to convert everybody.
If they took it to heart, they must have missed the fact that the apostles did not go into each other's territories and steal believers.
Because (at least according to "orthodox" chr*stianity) the apostles all shared the same religion. Fundamentalist Protestants of various stripes, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., do not. Each regards the other as heretical--unless they choose to ignore logic completely.
There is no indication pagans were embracing Noachide laws.
I have heard otherwise; that the Greco-Roman world was full of "G-d-fearers." Of course, your history is radically different from mine.
Where and when did Judaism proselytize for Noachide laws? Judaism is alien to every other nation. It is the ultimate xenophobic religion. It is only for the Jews. And, let's be brutally honest, Noachides are like groupie tag-alongs who sit at the back of the bus. How enticing is that?
I will do my best to explain, though I doubt I can satisfy you.
Having G-d associated in an especial way with one nation is the only way to assure universality and objectivity. All "universal" religions degenerate into localized tribal religions. Chr*stianity has been adapted and re-adapted to every culture in the world until J*sus has been reduced to the ancestral totem of whatever people worship him. The only way to ensure that the One True G-d is to be worshiped is to have Him worshiped explicitly as the Jewish G-d. This is where Judaism differs because it's the only way that works. The True G-d will be acknowledged by what amounts to Jewish spiritual conquest of the world. And pally . . . my white flag's already hanging out!
[Kosta: Don't kid yourself, there are "redneck" fundamentalists among the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, trust me.]
ZC: I'd better save this admission before you realize what you've done and it disappears forever down an Orwellian memory hole!
I am not sure what you mean.
Born-again" parents who raise their kids to believe everything that they do still have to "convert" them once they reach the "age of reason."
The god parents have exactly the same obligation. I realize that the concept of god parenting has become a virtual nonentity, but in the eyes of the Church they make a commitment to God at infant baptism to raise the child in the faith until adulthood and convert him to it through participation in the life of the Church from the very first.
When you think about it, god parents make an awesome commitment which most of them soon neglect or forget, so to an outsider and, pretty much, in reality the "conversion" does become a "right of passage," as you say.
This is why I left the Church and religion in general — it's a man-made dog and pony show, a bunch of Pharisee-wannabees who try to outdo each other publicly who is a greater Christian. In addition to being a ritualistic theater, with smells and bells, the Church has also become a political party and, in some instances, a secular power. That's not what God is all about.
That's what you do when you believe you're the "one true religion" and you're not physically afraid to do so. You try to convert everybody
That's why I don't score and points when I remind the Evangelicals that they and Muslims think alike. The reason is the same. But it has little to do with the belief that it is the "one true religion" since all religions believe that, but not all are aggressively converting others just the Muslims and the Evangelicals.
ZC: Because (at least according to "orthodox" chr*stianity) the apostles all shared the same religion. Fundamentalist Protestants of various stripes, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., do not. Each regards the other as heretical--unless they choose to ignore logic completely.
Catholics and Orthodox excommunicate (i.e. not thrwo them out of the Church, but cease communion with) those bishops who stray from what they consider orthodoxy.
The same could be said of the early Christians, going back all the way to the first decade after Jesus, and involving the so-called "Judaizers" or "hypocrites" of the Church of Jerusalem under James, who is somehow related to Jesus.
Paul and James didn't see eye to eye, and Paul wastes no time on several occasions to condemn proselytizers of the Jerusalem Church who were "intruding" in Paul's "jurisdiction," teaching the Gentiles to observe the Law, dietary restrictions and circumcision.
But you have to understand that James was not an apostle, even thought Paul calls him one. Those who were apostles supposedly didn't do this, so neither are the bishops supposed to.
However, that is a fairytale like all the rest. The book known as 1 Peter was written precisely for the purpose of mending the rift between the apostles "to the circumcision" and Paul, the apostle "to the uncircumcision."
The book was written psuedoepigraphically pretending to be Peter's, in order to mend the deep rift that existed between the two camps. So to claim that the apostles were of the "same faith" is a fairy tale. The Synoptic Gospels, or the Epistle of James, do not reflect what Paul teaches as "his" gospel. Christianity was decidedly heterodox in its beliefs all the way until the first Ecumenical Council in 325 AD (which is precisely why the Council was convened —to establish "orthodoxy" and reject "heresies").
You see, I would have had no problems staying in the Church if I were snug in my ignorance, and remained ignorant about it, which seems to be the requirement, whether volunatry or involunatry, in all cases. The most loyal followers are always those who know the least and accept "offcial truth" uncritically on its face value.
I don't have "my own" history ZC. I have no theology to defend, no official truth to peddle. I am a skeptic because I know men habitually lie and distort things to promote their own agenda.
I also don't go by 'heard otherwise" because to me that is, well, hearsay, in other words worthless. If you have documented evidence that the Jews were actively converting pagans to Noachide laws I would be happy to see it. However, I doubt that such efforts had significant results or otherwise it wouldn't be such an obscure headline.
[Kosta: Judaism is alien to every other nation. It is the ultimate xenophobic religion. It is only for the Jews]
ZC: Having G-d associated in an especial way with one nation is the only way to assure universality and objectivity [sic]
Universality, I can see that, but not "objectivity."
All "universal" religions degenerate into localized tribal religions.
Judaism was not a monolithic faith, and isn't even today. Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism some 400 years before Christ, and then was further split into religious political factions following the Maccabean Revolt and the events that preceded it.
The very acceptance of evil as not being directly caused and ordained by God as punishment for nonobservance and idolatry was a major development in the Jewish way of thinking that radically differs from Judaism preceding the Maccabean Revolt.
Along with apocalypticism of the time came the belief in the resurrection of the dead, an alien concept to the Judaism of Moses.
What you call Judaism today is but a vestige of only one political religious (man-made) faction that survived — the Pharisees, who monopolized Judaism as their own (because they could).
And even that does not guarantee "universalism." The only thing Judaism shares universally is its rejection of Jesus as being either divine or the messiah.
I can't argue with that, but one's faith is not in the manner (custom) of worship but in the substance of worship. Which is why the Church has theology and catechism, so that everyone around the world believes in the same thing regardless of how they worship or what language they worship in. You will not find any difference in the theology of any Orthodox Church or of the Catholic Church Churches in communion with Rome.
Judaism and Protestantism don't have a magisterium to ensure uniformity of belief. Judaism and Protestantism pretty much share the idea that each man is his own "pope." Ask any Jew what he or she believes about afterlife and you will probably get as many different answers as the number of people you ask. Ask a Protestant what is meant by "rewards" in heaven and you will get the same variety.
So, there is no universality let alone objectivity when it comes to subjective beliefs that require axiomatic, a priori acceptance of things "unseen."
The only way to ensure that the One True G-d is to be worshiped is to have Him worshiped explicitly as the Jewish G-d
I can see that being an axiomatic truth for the Jews, but how does that apply to the Gentiles? It requires conviction that the God of Israel is the one true God. Based on what? A book written by the Jews, for the Jews and about the Jews?
The True G-d will be acknowledged by what amounts to Jewish spiritual conquest of the world
Which is is precisely why the Evangelicals aggressively proselytize and why the Muslims believe that the whole world should be Muslim. The idea is the same, Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim to believe in the same God of Abraham, except that their idea of how this God of theirs will be acknowledged as the "True God" differs.
The Jews believe the meshiyah will demonstrate the power of the Hebrew God by defeating all Jewish enemies (victories were always attributed to God's favor). Which hardly constitutes a "spiritual" conquest.
The Evangelical Christians believe it is their duty to preach and win people over with promises of salvation and rewards in heaven, and the Muslims simply believe that God of Abraham left it to them to bring the world to believe in him either through willing conversion and by eliminating those who believe in a different God.
Much of the Muslim way of thinking is in line with the Jewish scripture's prescribed treatment of nations that worship idols. So, you can't say the Muzzies reinvented the wheel. They are just doing what God directed the Israelites to do with those pesky Canaanites and anyone like them.
Thus, the "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) can be spared until they accept Islam, but others have to be converted or die.
Now that we have almost 3 billion Christians, and 1.2 billion Muslims, we can safely say that the Jewish "spiritual conquest" is about half way there...for what it's worth.
So ZC,
Do you think GOD has a religion?
Do you think Angels have a Religion?
Do you think Religion exists in heaven?
Do you think if Life exists beyond our’s they have a religion? or practice Orthodoxy Judaism?
What is the point of GOD keeping people entrapped in *Religion* when they can be free and all Knowing in GOD’s wisdom in Perfection when he free’s the world from evil, physical death and im-perfection?
Lastly..Do you think it was GOD’s intention to have a religion for the First Man and Woman created...
Thank you in advance for your reply.....