Why should I convert to Judaism?
That would make it a "quadrinity". That alone is rather 'glaring'.
Can't have four entities in a "trinity" now can we?
Last edited by naturalplastic on 15 Sep 2014, 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
YourMum wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
glaring inaccuracies about what Christians believe, such as Mary being part of the trinity
That's not such a glaring inaccuracy.
It is.
This is a text that not only professes to know what Christians believe (which is the Mary part), but also what they are supposed to believe.
Yest their, version of Christianity is so laughable, it almost make me sound like a Christianity apologist which I'm definitely not.
It not only doesn't show any great knowledge of the Christianity, it shows complete ignorance of the Levant in the 1st century.
I think religion that professes that the Abrahamic regions are have been corrupted and it is the true immutable word, it deserves all the scrutiny it gets.
simon_says wrote:
Judaism is a pretty good deal. If you were basing the choice on risk assessment you are better off going with it over Islam or Christianity. The reason being the lack of eternal punishment. A brief purgatory period is the general view whereas the general view in Christianity and Islam is the pit or lake of fire for an eternity or at least a very long period. You need to have a very high opinion of yourself, or be delusional about your virtuous nature or capacity for faith, to take on the risk of eternal punishment for finite sins that you may not anticipate committing.
Of course if you were rational, well... never mind.
Of course if you were rational, well... never mind.
wait? how's judaism a good deal in this scenario? If you're a christian, and judaism would have been the correct answer, there's no eternal punishment.
if you're a jew, and christianity would have been the right answer, you'll burn in hell.
it's always advisable to choose the religion with the most horrible possible afterlife for non-believers, that way, you're definitely choosing either the best or at least the second-to-worst possible outcome, but never the number one worst outcome.
so to answer the original question: you shouldn't!
you should, however, among the religions mentioned above, also consider Mayan Mythology. Xibalba sounds like a bad place.
actually, come to think of it: you should create your own religion and imagine the most horrible hell ever imagined (good luck with that)- just to make sure your risk assessment strategy is definitely betting on the right horse, or at the least, only the second-to worst.
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
naturalplastic wrote:
That would make it a "quadrinity". That alone is rather 'glaring'.
Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?
Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?
I hope that you've already realised this, but to suggest that X is a part of a three-part entity implies that there are three parts to said entity, and X is one of them.
0_equals_true wrote:
It not only doesn't show any great knowledge of the Christianity, it shows complete ignorance of the Levant in the 1st century.
The Levant along with the rest of the Middle East was a place of great diversity during composition of the Qur'an, so it's perfectly plausible to suggest that such beliefs were held.
Mukherjee80 wrote:
One ironic thing... ...Palestinian Arabs are probably genetically closer to the Israelites of the Old Testament than are many of the people who today call themselves "Jews".
Quite. There are definite common genetic roots between Jews, Arabs, Hebrews, Mandaeans, Syriacs-Arameans, Samaritans and Assyrians. Obviously these links have diverged over time. There are also clear common roots culturally also and in reality Semites are more than just the Jewish people although more modern conventions means it is now considered differently by most. Semitic is actually a term that groups people whose native tongue is from that language family.
It's such a shame that we, and I mean man in general, always focus on our differences when we always have so much more in common.
YourMum wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
That would make it a "quadrinity". That alone is rather 'glaring'.
Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?
Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?
I hope that you've already realised this, but to suggest that X is a part of a three-part entity implies that there are three parts to said entity, and X is one of them.
Thats what I said. They fired, or forgot, some one third of the actual Trinity in order to put a wrong entity into it. Thats a rather glaring error. Like saying that the Marx Brothers were "Harpo, Chico, and Karl"!
naturalplastic wrote:
They fired, or forgot, some one third of the actual Trinity in order to put a wrong entity into it.
There is no one 'Christianity', and in different sects occur different views on the Trinity. One part of the three being female, for example, is one of those views.