Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[TD1]

I kinda read that as 'preach it in a way that is appealing to them without going outside of gods word. Constantly preach it or always be ready to preach it and be prepared to preach it to anyone in a way they would understand.'
I don't read that as being forcefull

That's more personal interpretation-little to do with religion.

[TheDarkStar]

I kinda read that as 'preach it in a way that is appealing to them without going outside of gods word. Constantly preach it or always be ready to preach it and be prepared to preach it to anyone in a way they would understand.'
I don't read that as being forcefull

That's more personal interpretation-little to do with religion.

There are some Christian religions that have the "Constantly preach it or always be ready to preach it" part as part of their beliefs (and preaching it includes living it - so being a good person is included).

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Yes a good lesson does cater to everyone

But not everyone is good at making lessons

That's what pastors/priests/etc

So for just the normal person, I think, you should be able to teach a lesson that is understood by the person you are teaching it to

I'm not a priest so I don't plan on preaching to hundreds or thousands but if I do I pray to god for the wisdom and ability to preach a good lesson

[TD1]

Wonder what would happen if a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim got together and started preaching to convert each other.

I mean, they're all equally viable, and they all say to preach the "true word..."

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

My youth group watched something like that


It was a Christian biased thing though

It was several teenagers
I think two atheists, a Jewish kid, a catholic, baptist, Hindu, two Muslims I think, and a Christian group leader
It was a long series of them just discussing stuffs

[Orange Wizard]

That sounds like fun, actually.

[freeformschooler]

Wonder what would happen if a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim got together and started preaching to convert each other.

I mean, they're all equally viable, and they all say to preach the "true word..."

I doubt you'd ever see a Hindu try to convert other folk to Hinduism. Hinduism doesn't work that way. Remember: One Truth/Many Paths.

[Frumple]

Nah, you almost certainly would have at least some Hindu adherents hold some sort of conversion campaign. There's a ridiculously huge amount of sects and offshoots of the vedic descended stuff, and exactly how they go about their business is as just as myriad.

It's certainly less likely than with abrahamic descended stuff, but far from extremely rare.

In a lot of ways, Hinduism doesn't work in any particular way, from what interactions I've had with the subject. More splintered than the thousand denominations and a denomination of protestantism, ha. It's actually kind of refreshing, since that sort of thing has tended to breed a pretty incredibly tolerate attitude towards religious diversity (if not necessarily other sorts of diversity) in the areas it flourishes.

[Gnorm]

... does the text actually say that? Some tentative poking around points to the possibility that some of them -- the Pharisees, mostly -- might have, but nothing blanket, and no specific recension of their status as the chosen of YWHW.

Also a pretty high likelihood that the bits speaking against the jewish people were either post-event anti-jewish stuff (coming out of christian gentiles, decades after Streaker J was supposed to have keeled over -- transcription manipulation, basically) or a known jewish literary technique (more or less an old invocation of "no true scotsman" -- a sort of "look at these insufficiently faithful not-true-Jews" thing) that probably didn't mean terrible much, when it comes right down to it.

Also an odd sort of thing to state, considering Streaker J and his exposure-bros were mostly Jews themselves...

The idea that the Covenant with the Jews is over is all but explicitly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Old Testament also has God hand the Israelites into the hands of their enemies for crimes less severe than the murder of God Himself. As for Jesus' disciples being Jews, they were Jewish-Christians; they grew up in the Jewish faith, but they did not reject the Resurrection and Ascension as the rest of the Jews did, hence the difference.

[Frumple]

The idea that the Covenant with the Jews is over is all but explicitly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

... yeah, literally in the same set of verses:

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
    after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
    and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

I guess by "all but explicitly" you mean "explicitly not"...

That sounds pretty specifically like they're still the chosen people of YWHW. Further, it's not because of a group of them's giving up of Streaker J to the romans that the old covenant has waned -- it's just because there's a better priest in town.

Hebrew 6 also kiiiinda' mentions YWHW's inability to lie, which I'd say would preclude its breaking of old oaths. The covenant may have changed, but promises previously made would likely still hold.

Also as noted, the whole "subset of wicked Jews doing wicked things and then better ones coming along" is apparently a very standard judaic literary technique, at least during the periods the torah (and related texts) was being passed along and eventually transcribed. Sort of an applied No True Scotsman thing. It... probably doesn't actually mean that much, from the text's perspective.

No lost claim sighted?

[Il Palazzo]

In a lot of ways, Hinduism doesn't work in any particular way, from what interactions I've had with the subject. More splintered than the thousand denominations and a denomination of protestantism, ha. It's actually kind of refreshing, since that sort of thing has tended to breed a pretty incredibly tolerate attitude towards religious diversity (if not necessarily other sorts of diversity) in the areas it flourishes.

I suppose the Hindu perpetrated anti-Muslim violence in India is the expression of the incredibly tolerant attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India

[Frumple]

Tended was the key word, IP. Comparatively lesser history of sectarian and inter-faith violence and whatnot. So far as I'm aware, anyway.

Also the noted violence seems to be an expression of a yet-again screwed up socio-political environment more than anything particularly religious. Fuck you, British Empire, etc., etc. Among other things, as always.

[penguinofhonor]

I suppose the Hindu perpetrated anti-Muslim violence in India is the expression of the incredibly tolerant attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India

I had a theology professor once who spent a lot of time in India. He said Indian Hindus acted more like American Christians than American Hindus because they were in the majority. He seemed to blame Christianity's majority status in the West for a lot of its problems like taking over politics and bullying smaller religions, and basically said Christians in India acted a lot more Christian because they were in the minority and were under scrutiny.

[Ultimuh]

I suppose the Hindu perpetrated anti-Muslim violence in India is the expression of the incredibly tolerant attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India

I had a theology professor once who spent a lot of time in India. He said Indian Hindus acted more like American Christians than American Hindus because they were in the majority. He seemed to blame Christianity's majority status in the West for a lot of its problems like taking over politics and bullying smaller religions, and basically said Christians in India acted a lot more Christian because they were in the minority and were under scrutiny.

That actually makes sense.

[Il Palazzo]

Also the noted violence seems to be an expression of a yet-again screwed up socio-political environment more than anything particularly religious.

Arguably, this is always the case, in every and all "religiously motivated" violence. Religion merely acts as a method of delineating between the in- and out-group. The measure of the extent of tolerance of a given religion is its resistance to being hijacked for such purposes.
A truly tolerant religion teaches the sanctity of all life(or at least, all human life) with no caveats, unanimously condemns violence of all kinds and is not open to interpretation on these subjects.
For example, you never see, nor ever will see, a violent Jainist sectarian. Hinduism doesn't quite cut it.