spin offs

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are so many spinoffs of Judaism.

Christianity was the first, changing the teaching of obedience to the law to one of belief, and making a man into God (at least the orthodox version).

Then Islam came, a spin off of a spin off.

Most recently we have Baha'i, a spin off of a spin off of a spin off.

All of them change the original message.


Why should I take all these spin offs seriously when I have the original? Which would you rather have: a copy of a Van Gogh, or the original?

Just because something's a spinoff doesn't mean it's unoriginal.

I mean, Christianity has about as much to do with Judaism as Mork & Mindy has to do with Happy Days.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

There are so many spinoffs of Judaism.

Why should I take all these spin offs seriously when I have the original? Which would you rather have: a copy of a Van Gogh, or the original?

A few ways of looking at this that are outside of the normal. These are not questions that I have for you but ways that you may answer your own question.

1. What is Judaism and what about it sets it apart from what you call spin-offs?
   • I.e. is the method of reception different, the authenticity more reliable, and(or) more accurate?
2. Are you sure what you are calling "spin-offs" can be accurately defined as "spin-offs"?
   • i.e. what is your definition as a spin-off and what about Judaism makes it so that is not a spin-off of something prior to it?

1. Are you sure that your analogy of a Van Gogh copy is an accurate representation of your analogy of a spin-off?
   • For example, a copy is normally defined in English as a thing made to be similar or identical to another. So, normally a copy should be almost indistinguishable from the original. A spin-off, is defined as a byproduct or incidental result of a larger project.
2. Is it possible that your choice of terms are not in line with what you are actually asking?
   • For example, having an original Van Gogh doesn't mean what you have is accurate or authentic - when consider what Van Gogh was painting or whas inspired to paint.
   • Possibly, having a picture-video-eye witness accounts of the place/thing that Van Gogh was painting is more reliable than his artist rendition of it. So, maybe the better question would be, "Why should I settle for something that is proven to be inaccurate and non-authorative vs. what I have which is ancient, accurate, and authorative?"
3. Lastly, if what you have is the "original" then why is what you asked above even a question? I
   • f what you described are inferior because they are not the original, and if you know this to be true, then it would stand to reason that the question, and any potential answers, are not not even relevant.

Just something to consider.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are so many spinoffs of Judaism.

Christianity was the first, changing the teaching of obedience to the law to one of belief, and making a man into God (at least the orthodox version).

Then Islam came, a spin off of a spin off.

Most recently we have Baha'i, a spin off of a spin off of a spin off.

All of them change the original message.


Why should I take all these spin offs seriously when I have the original? Which would you rather have: a copy of a Van Gogh, or the original?

There are orthodox Jews, reform Jews, conservative, lubovitcher Jews. All with different ideas. So what's the original?

 

[74x12]

But these spin offs substantially change the message, which is to say they either imply or state outright that the original was wrong. That is not improving upon Judaism. That is saying that Judaism was false. You can't have it both ways.

Christianity doesn't do that. It just teaches the resurrection has begun.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are orthodox Jews, reform Jews, conservative, lubovitcher Jews. All with different ideas. So what's the original?

Along with polytheistic Jews of the ancient Canaanite pastoral tribe.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

There are so many spinoffs of Judaism.

Christianity was the first, changing the teaching of obedience to the law to one of belief, and making a man into God (at least the orthodox version).

Then Islam came, a spin off of a spin off.

Most recently we have Baha'i, a spin off of a spin off of a spin off.

All of them change the original message.


Why should I take all these spin offs seriously when I have the original? Which would you rather have: a copy of a Van Gogh, or the original?

And Judaism was itself a spin-off of the Canaanites (later incorporating elements of Zoroastrianism) with some elements of the Babylonians and Sumerians added in to give it flavor.

Everything is a spin-off of something else or many other things.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

All rivers lead to the sea. You're happy with your choice and, of course, think it's the best possible choice. And it is the best possible choice: for you.

Others make a different choice which they believe is the best choice and it is: for them.

Some of us don't feel the need for an exoteric religion.

And so it goes.

Yeah I feel ya dude. Exoteric religion ain't my cup of tea either.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

There are orthodox Jews, reform Jews, conservative, lubovitcher Jews. All with different ideas. So what's the original?

And before then we had Essenes, Saducees and Pharasies, as well as Samaritans (who are still around), all of which who came out of older streams of tradition.

 

[YoursTrue]

And Judaism was itself a spin-off of the Canaanites (later incorporating elements of Zoroastrianism) with some elements of the Babylonians and Sumerians added in to give it flavor.

Everything is a spin-off of something else or many other things.

Not really, because the true God spoke to Abraham who was not a Jew. Promising him certain things. It was from Abraham's offspring, particularly Isaac and then Jacob that the nation of Israel came, according to God's (the true One) promises.

 

[YoursTrue]

And before then we had Essenes, Saducees and Pharasies, as well as Samaritans (who are still around), all of which who came out of older streams of tradition.

The Sadducees and Pharisees were around in the first century. Moses was known as an Egyptian but God met him.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The Sadducees and Pharisees were around in the first century.

Yes because Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua polemicizes against them in the four 'gospels'.

 

[YoursTrue]

And Judaism was itself a spin-off of the Canaanites (later incorporating elements of Zoroastrianism) with some elements of the Babylonians and Sumerians added in to give it flavor.

Everything is a spin-off of something else or many other things.

The question is, is there a true God? And does He let himself be known? He did to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and others.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes because Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua polemicizes against them in the four 'gospels'.

There are now various branches of many religions. We have a responsibility to determine for ourselves who we will serve.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Well, Judaism is a spinoff of older Mesopotamian Paleopaganism, which was likely a spinoff of animism. Animism is probably at the heart of most religions, eventually developing into shamanism and from there the clerical orders and superstitions become increasingly partisan.

So really you're arguing for us all to become animists.

Yes bingo!

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The question is, is there a true God? And does He let himself be known? He did to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and others.

There are now various branches of many religions. We have a responsibility to determine for ourselves who we will serve.

I don't really get the what or why of what you're saying.

 

[King Phenomenon]

There are so many spinoffs of Judaism.

Christianity was the first, changing the teaching of obedience to the law to one of belief, and making a man into God (at least the orthodox version).

Then Islam came, a spin off of a spin off.

Most recently we have Baha'i, a spin off of a spin off of a spin off.

All of them change the original message.


Why should I take all these spin offs seriously when I have the original? Which would you rather have: a copy of a Van Gogh, or the original?

I'd rather have my own understanding.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't really get the what or why of what you're saying.

Let's see if you understand this: Abraham left Ur. See now, Ur did not have a Jewish religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't really get the what or why of what you're saying.

You don't understand the question(s)? Is there a true God? Let me see if I can simplify it for you. Does any god exist? I use lower case because I usually use upper case G for the God as spoken of as the true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and others) in the Bible. So, to reiterate, do you think that any god (or God) exists? If you don't understand that question, I don't think I can break it down any further for you..

 

[VoidoftheSun]

You don't understand the question(s)? Is there a true God? Let me see if I can simplify it for you. Does any god exist?

Well I'm obviously not an Atheist

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I'm obviously not an Atheist

I haven't read all of your posts. So since you're not an atheist, let me guess.. no never mind...because if you say you believe in God (god), I'd have to ask which one?