-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do Abrahamics disagree over so-called prophets and prophesies?
- Thread starter Marcion
- Start date
Some mythological character connected with Brahma?
The father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of the Jewish people.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Brahma is much more interesting than Abraham, IMO.
...All Faith's come from God. Monotheistic, polytheistic -doesn't matter.
@Flankerl has implied that the new Israel means that we replaced Jews.
No...Jesus came and gave us free will...no new Covenant at all
As the chosen people, yes, this is the theology.
"In Christianity, supersessionism is a theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God"
Supersessionism - Wikipedia
from your link
Recently, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium (2013), Pope Francis’s own teaching on the matter closely mirrored these words of Cardinal Kasper:[41] "God's grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, [as] the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."[42] In 2011, Kasper specifically repudiated the notion of "displacement" theology, clarifying that the "New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfillment of the Old Covenant."[43]
Yes, it is a contentious issue. It appears that, in practice, very few people actually believe in RT.
From my observations, it seems to hard-wired for some folks. Part of their intrinsic make-up. If you take the story of the guy who went to North Sentinel, most dharmics and atheists said, leave the place alone' yet many Abrahamics more or less agreed with the guy, but disagreed with his methodology. In other words, let's interfere, prove we're right, but do it in a smarter way.
The "I'm right and you're wrong' mentality is overly prevalent, in the blood. We watchers observe it on many threads here.
OTOH, a dharmic can simply say 'we believe differently' and leave it at that.
I'm not sure if it's symptomatic, or only a vocal few who operate this way. After all, we wouldn't hear much from the 'not vocal' group. Dharmics generally aren't vocal. A billion Hindus and maybe 5 or 6 active on here.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
What the hell. Christians might have agreed with him.
But show me a single Jew that did.
A single one.
This is why this categorisation is absolutely ridiculous.
We are not like them.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Not really. I only hate murder, which is the only reason I side with the murdered missionary. Murder is a sin. And "potential" harm is nothing.
If we live worrying about "potential" harm, then don't ever drive a car again! You might kill someone!
Cooky
Veteran Member
I believe in the NC.
You're right. I used the word 'many', not 'all'. Although every person is an individual with individual beliefs, I still see some use in generalising, as it may indicate some things. This forum is categorised that way. I have no personal relationships with any Jewish people. Rare here.
I viewed his death as more incidental, like someone walking on a freeway. Would the driver of the car on a fast dangerous (for wandering pedestrians) freeway be charged with murder. Wise people simply don't go to dangerous places, if possible.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Do you also blame women who dress scantily for their own rape? I mean hey... They had it commin'... Right?
Well, in reality, we can police our own people. But we can't police these savages, I guess. So that's the difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't the same thing at all.
Cooky
Veteran Member
It's all based on people being reasonable or not. It's based on having regard for others or not.
These islanders are human beings still, no? Or are they more like cave men?
The man who walks onto the motorway has no reason about him, nor care for the drivers. If drivers are forced to halt quickly for him, because he is in the middle of a damn road, then there will be multiple car crashes. If he is run over it is entirely his fault a driver cannot stop in time. Men looking at immodestly clothed women, on the other hand, can walk away from the situation.