Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?



4/05/2018 3:57 am  #41


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

119, just curious, are you ethnically jewish? Were you born a jew, is your mom jewish?

Last edited by Miguel (4/05/2018 3:57 am)

 

4/05/2018 5:57 am  #42


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Raised catholic. Long-time atheist. Flirted with various christian denominations. And eastern stuff. I've never met a religious Jew (accept online.) I know many secular ones. Some think it's endearing when I encourage them to follow Torah. Others, not so much. I wouldn't dream of converting. I can barely follow seven laws.

Maybe this is bad advice. Then it's biographical. The only way to test any philosophic TOE (theory of everything), which is what a "religion" claims to be, is by trying it on. Does the universe make sense in those terms? Can it answer questions? This is a weird place for me. I'm not naturally "religious." My default state is nihilism. POE uber alles!

I've had to switch stereotypes of the Jewish people: the enlightenment atheist for this. I prefer the latter. My advisor was the former, possibly a bad influence. He studied under Quine, Putnam, Malcolm, Dretske, ad infinitum. He said he had two bona fide religious experiences in his entire life. #1 At a funeral a man cried out for his lost wife "Why did you take her from me HaShem?" My advisor realized, for the first time in his life, that some people really believed in G-d. #2 Later in the service it dawned on him that this man was not the only one.

So was Hilary Putnam a Theist? Anyone?

Story about Quine. For particularly stupid comments & questions he'd say "That would have never ocurred to me."

Last edited by 119 (4/05/2018 9:26 am)

 

4/05/2018 4:54 pm  #43


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

119 wrote:

I posed a challenge there: What ontological status did the Torah have for Jesus? Was he a rabbi of a religion that did not represent the Will of A-mighty G-d or not? Did he believe in an unreliable Torah of dubious accuracy, that he allegedly promised never to abolish? (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus did not "believe in" anything about God and his design. He KNEW (in his human intellect) all those truths directly because He enjoyed the Beatific Vision - in a higher degree than that of the Seraphim of Is 6:1-3 - from the moment of his conception, and in the Beatific Vision He saw all those truths directly.

119 wrote:

[You do not know] whether HaShem took the Children of Israel -- His "firstborn son" -- out of Egypt, or whether there was really a national Revelation, or whether the Book of Numbers lied about the census G-d commanded.

I hold the spiritual truth of all those narratives, with certainty of faith, as interpreted from the NT.

I hold their historical truth,
-- first, with certainty of faith, to the degree that the faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold it,
-- then, in addition to that, and as changeable opinion, to the degree that historical plausibility according to the current state of science indicates.

Thus, e.g.:

- The faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold the historical factuality of the creation of a first couple of human beings, but does not require me to hold the historical factuality of the chronologies in Genesis. So I hold, with certainty of faith, that Biblical Adam existed and that he was either Y-Chromosomal Adam or a patrilineal ancestor thereof (i.e., that all extant human beings descend patrilineally from him), but I do not hold that he lived a few thousand years ago. Rather, I provisionally accept current scientific estimations that he may have lived 250,000 - 300,000 years ago.

- The faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold that there was a revelation to the people of Israel, but does not require me to hold that all of the Torah, and particularly the Deuteronomy, was written by Moses at Sinai. Particularly when that would contradict the Torah itself.

- The faith in God and Jesus does not require me to hold the historical factuality of the statement that 603,550 men "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war," plus their women and children, departed Egypt. So I am free to believe that a smaller number actually did, and Richard Elliott Friedman's hypothesis that they were the Levites seems for now highly plausible.

119 wrote:

Who do you think canonized the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim? [...] How do you know all those prophets you're always quoting were the Real Deal? Cuz the catholic church said so?!

Yes. Starting with Jesus as Head of the Church, since He quoted some of them Himself as divinely inspired Scripture, following with the Apostles quoting other books in their NT writings, and ending with the pronouncement of the divinely-assisted (according to a promise by Jesus) Church Magisterium on those books not quoted directly in the NT.

119 wrote:

How would they know?

By the assistance of the Holy Spirit, a statement which I hope you will not take as opportunity to blaspheme against Him.

119 wrote:

The Christian claim that the NT has the same status as a document dictated by G-d, which was never canonized, is absurd.

Of course the NT does not have the same status! It has a much higher status!

119 wrote:

If you're quoting Jeremiah to prove your religion has the new covenant, you can't point to your religion as the source of Jeremiah's authority.

And this why I decided to post again, because this brings us back to the OP question "Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?".

The truth of Christianity is NOT based on argumentation on how greatly it fulfills such and such passage of the Torah, the Prophets, or the other Writings. This not said just by me, but by the foremost Authority in Christianity:

The Lord Jesus Chirst said and the Apostle John wrote:

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and may understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (Jn 10:37-38)

"If I had not done among them the works that no one else has done, they [those who rejected Jesus] would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." (Jn 15:24)

Rather, the truth of Christianity is based:

- on historical evidence of an unequivocal divine intervention in history, particularly resurrecting several people through a Servant of His and, above all, resurrecting the Servant Himself, and

- on the presupposition that God would perform such an unequivocal exercise of his exclusive power only to lead people to truth and good. In other words, that God is truthful and good.

119 wrote:

Regarding G-d raising Jesus to some glorious state, I don't trust whoever wrote the NT. Period. If they're lying to me about the contents of the TaNaKh, why should I trust what they're saying about anything? I haven't addressed this issue directly because I've been positing, for the sake of argument, that Jesus had miraculous powers, which are not unheard of in Jewish history.

Now at long last you are talking sense and there is some hope you will get to the truth some time. Because otherwise this would be the summary of your position, including its outcome:

Postulates:

- Torah ontic comprehensiveness: the Torah contains all truths about God and his design, so that any proposition about God which cannot be deduced from the Torah is necessarily false and points to a false god.

- No limit on the degree of divine power exercised to support the claims of the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5, and no restriction in the character of the sign involved.

Case study: the founder of Islam.

- No new revelation on God. Similar food laws. No problem with Gentiles resting on Friday and praying towards Mecca.
- No miracles, so he is not the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5.

Verdict: he can be the prophet like Moses predicted in Deut 18:15-19, only for Gentiles.

Case study: Jesus.

- Major new revelation on God.
- Major miracles.

Verdict: he is the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5.

Hey, it all fits!

- The false prophet predicted that he will rise from the dead on the third day, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and resurrected him to continue the test on the faifhful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

- The false prophet predicted that his followers would work miracles like he did, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and worked the miracles of Catholic saints to continue the test on the faithful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

- The false prophet predicted that those who reject him will go to hell, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and sent me to this fire to continue the test on the faithful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

Err... HaShem, will the test last much longer? These flames are really unbearable!
 

Last edited by Johannes (4/05/2018 5:19 pm)

 

4/05/2018 9:07 pm  #44


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Johannes wrote:

The truth of Christianity is NOT based on argumentation on how greatly it fulfills such and such passage of the Torah, the Prophets, or the other Writings.

Then why have you been quoting them? Why is the NT busting at the seems with them? Why didn't you lead with this disavowal?

Here's the pattern:

Christian: Jeremiah 31 says new covenant!
Non-christian: That doesn't mean what you think. The NT authors are playing fast & loose with their eisegeses.
Christian: Doesn't matter. That's not why we believe anyway.
Non-christian: You're throwing spaghetti at a wall, hoping some sticks -- I mean becoming all things to all men.
Christian: Quit blaspheming the holy spirit or you'll go to hell! Derp. 

Johannes wrote:

Of course the NT does not have the same status! It has a much higher status!



Because it says so! Who's on first? Third base!

You're putting words in my mouth about Islam and the summary of my position. That's unsanitary.

Johannes wrote:

and worked the miracles of Catholic saints



I suppose it would be blasphemy to question any of them. (Over 100 miracles with this saint alone, though none involving oozing statues.)

Johannes wrote:

These flames are really unbearable!

Knock knock
Who's there?
Jesus. Let me in.
Why?
I'm going to save you.
From what?
From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

If you can complain about G-d "setting a trap for the faithful" so can I. Why would He use terms like "everlasting," "forever," "eternal," "for all your generations," if He really meant "until my son performs miracles and changes everything"? How is that not a trap for Torah True Jews? Why tell them not to deviate to the left or to the right? They follow the commands in a national Revelation and get framed for deicide. Nice!  

Last edited by 119 (4/06/2018 4:42 am)

 

6/23/2018 6:55 pm  #45


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Yes, I must say I agree. The Dark Ages might have been called by that name, not only because there is lack of historical evidence, but also because of the fact that the church left the general society in darkness and ignorance... The two might also be somehow relative

 

6/23/2018 9:55 pm  #46


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

MichaelChicy wrote:

Yes, I must say I agree. The Dark Ages might have been called by that name, not only because there is lack of historical evidence, but also because of the fact that the church left the general society in darkness and ignorance... The two might also be somehow relative

Haha. What do you mean "darkness and ignorance"?

 

7/29/2018 4:01 pm  #47


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

119 wrote:

To believe that a national Revelation has been "fulfilled," annulled, or replaced, I'd need one of two things. 1) Substantially greater evidence (a world revelation?) or 2) An explicit statement in the original Revelation that this will occur. Christianity fails both.

I disagree.

With respect to 1, I say the following.

First and foremost, there's the question of whether or not the evidence for the National Revelation at Sinai really is better than the evidence for Yeshua's resurrection. Consider that the consensus in NT scholarship is that all the books of the New Testament were completed by the end of the first century - within living memory of Yeshua's ministry. By contrast, there are very few OT scholars who would date the completion of the pentateuch prior to 600 BC - more than half a melinnium after Moses! Now, it is possible that the scholars are wrong (I personally accept Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch), but it's clear that the Christian is going to have an easier time establishing a connection between the texts and actual events.

In other words, before you appeal to the "best explanation" for the National Revelation at Sinai, you have to establish that the revelation actually happened.

Secondly, there's a difference between establishing that a covenant has been annulled, and establishing that it has been replaced. Moreover, while one could theoretically establish replacement and annullment in one go (by establishing that the covenant had, in fact, been replaced), there would be nothing wrong with breaking the argument into two steps - or even three, if you wanted to establish the necessity of a replacement prior to establishing the identity of said replacement.

Now, when looking at the evidence for the perpetuity of the Mosaic covenant, it is surely apparent that there is nothing problematic about a replacement for it, save insofar as replacement entails annullment. So if one's primary objection to a proposed replacement (such as Christianity) is that the Mosaic covenant does not seem to admit of annullment, there is no reason to pit the old covenant against the New one directly. One could instead use an entirely different and independent line of evidence to diffuse the objection.

I will now sketch how this may be done. First and foremost, consider the Name of G-d as revealed fully to Moses in Exodus 34:

"Ha'Shem, Ha'Shem, a G-d merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."

Note that His wrath is limited to the third and fourth generation. Given the typical duration of a generation by Jewish reckoning (~40 years), we may presume that the Jewish people, no matter how badly they sin, will never be punished for more than 160 years consecutively.

Now we turn to a point of fact: viz, the destruction of the Jewish temple circa AD 70. In particular, note that it has been some forty-eight generations and counting since the destruction, and there are still no signs that it will be reconstructed. Note also that, without the temple, it is impossible for the Jewish community as a whole to obey some 244 of the 613 commandments. Moreover, note that the Torah itself gives no hint of allowing for prayers or the like to replace the sacrifices and burnt offerings prescribed by the Law. Note, finally, that the only parallels to this catastrophe in Jewish history - the loss of the Ark of the Covenant to the Philistines during the priesthood of Eli, and the destruction of Solomon's Temple by the Babylonians - occurred as punishment for sin, and lasted for under one generation and for seventy years, respectively.

From this fact (and the various corrolaries), we may conclude that either the Jews have been rejected entirely, or else that G-d has annulled the Mosaic covenant and replaced it. Now, from what has been said regarding the asymmetry between G-d's wrath and His steadfast love, it should be clear which horn of the dilemma ought to be taken.

Yet more can be said. And this is where we come to your second point and Jeremiah 31. While most of the discussion up until this point has focused on verse 31 and its proper interpretation, I would contend that we ought to focus instead on the entirety of the chapter - the constant reassurance to Israel that the G-d who had afflicted them would never abandon them. In light of this, combined with the manifest fact that the Jews as a community have been deprived of the means to fulfill some 40% of their covenant obligations for nearly two mellinnia, I would say that the New Covenant mentioned in verse 31 needs to be interpreted along the lines of a genuinely novel arrangement, rather than a restoration of the original.

As a final point (still related to the loss of the temple), Jewish ways of dealing with these problems need to be held to the same standard as Christian ways of doing so, and it's far from clear that the Jewish solutions will do a better job. Certainly, the Talmudic suggestion that the offerings in the temple are to be replaced by the prayers of the faithful has no basis in any "explicit statement" of the Torah itself. The question isn't whether or not the Torah has been replaced, the question is which parts have been annulled and what they've been replaced by. Which brings us all the way back around to the question of evidence. Does Christianity have better evidence in its favor than Rabbinic Judaism?

 

7/31/2018 4:52 am  #48


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

"First and foremost, there's the question of whether or not the evidence for the National Revelation at Sinai really is better than the evidence for Yeshua's resurrection"

It doesn’t matter if Jesus rose from the dead, or how any secular scholar or Christian theologian interprets the Torah. If a national Revelation doesn’t declare itself temporary, specify a successor, and give permission to its adherents to re-interpret it in this light, then all such claims are false, even if accompanied by “signs and wonders,” accurate predictions of the future, legions of followers, and the official approval of "western civilization" [sic]. There's an entire chapter in Deuteronomy commanding the Israelites to ignore supernatural evidence if it leads them away from HaShem, Who is not a man, Who is One, Whose Covenant is repeatedly described as "everlasting," binding for all generations," and "eternal." Miracles don't change this.

“In other words, before you appeal to the 'best explanation' for the National Revelation at Sinai, you have to establish that the revelation actually happened.”
 
This isn’t how abductive arguments work. The Kuzari establishes the reasonableness of the belief on the grounds that its historicity is the best explanation. For those interested in the argument:

In flowchart format

Unbroken Chain
 
How We Know We Heard G-d at Sinai

A Rational Approach

"(I personally accept Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch)"

Then why challenge the evidence for its Divinity? Is this some debating tactic? I can never tell where Christians stand. Is it the Word of A-mighty G-d, Canaanite mythology, "inspired" but mostly wrong, early Kafka, a Rorschach for Jesus sightings? What do you think the “Old Testament” is?

I don't accept Moses' authorship. G-d wrote the Torah and dictated it one letter at a time to His Prophet. No other Revelation has this status and no subsequent Prophet has the status of Moses. These are two of Judaism's 13 Principles regardless of what any Christian denomination or Reform Judaism [sic] said last week. Awkwardly and incoherently, Christian religions presuppose the Sinai Revelation and the Sinai Revelation precludes all subsequent religions.

"Note that His wrath is limited to the third and fourth generation."

This is a Christian interpretation, the authority of which is the point in question. Exodus 34 is where the Sages derived the 13 Attributes of Mercy.  It has numerical significance, but nothing to do with replacing Israel. (It can't be emphasized enough that their chosen-ness is not a function of their moral perfection or SAT scores. It's about G-d's Honor.) 

"note that the Torah itself gives no hint of allowing for prayers or the like to replace the sacrifices and burnt offerings prescribed by the Law."

How did Torah observance survive the destruction of the First Temple? Are you sure the Torah has nothing to say about the Temple-less future of the Jewish people?

And the L-rd will scatter you among the peoples, and you will remain few in number among the nations to where the L-rd will lead you. And there you will worship gods, man's handiwork, wood and stone, which neither see, hear, eat, nor smell. And from there you will seek the L-rd your G-d, and you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are distressed, and all these things happen upon you in the end of days, then you will return to the L-rd your G-d and obey Him. For the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not let you loose or destroy you; neither will He forget the covenant of your fathers, which He swore to them. For ask now regarding the early days that were before you, since the day that G-d created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens, whether there was anything like this great thing, or was the likes of it heard? Did ever a people hear G-d's voice speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live? ... You have been shown, in order to know that the L-rd He is G-d; there is none else besides Him. (Deut. 4:27-35)  Note G-d's shout-out to the Kuzari. See also Exodus 19:9. This evidence will work "forever."

And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you. Your land will be desolate, and your cities will be laid waste. (Leviticus 26:33)  Horrifying as this chapter & Deut. 28 are, they never, not once, say a peep about Israel being replaced. The Prophet Hosea wrote that the exile will last a long time: For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the L-rd their G-d and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the L-rd and to His goodness at the end of days. (Hosea 3:4-5)

Deuteronomy 30 describes Israel’s redemption: And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the L-rd your G-d has driven you, and return to the L-rd your G-d, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the L-rd your G-d will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the L-rd your G-d has scattered you. (Deuteronomy 30:1-3)
 
Are you denying these passages have anything to do with the Children of Israel returning to HaShem and His Torah at the end of days? Where do we find anything about “fulfillments” by Jesus? The only reference to the son of G-d in the Torah is Exodus 4:22. It’s Israel. Period. Hosea alludes to this in 11:1. Your Bible has always contained a NT and you accept its authority and interpretations from the outset. (I used to do this too!) There’s no Christian theology in the TaNaKH. There's no Judaeo-Christian anything. These are things everyone asserts but no one questions. The possibility that the NT is an early version of the Book of Mormon is treated like some logical impossibility. 

Yes, the current government of Israel is definitely not the prophesized Theocracy. They picked the wrong place for a secular democracy. This is why the so-called “ultra Orthodox” are anti-Zionist. This. It's complicated and exasperating.

"I would say that the New Covenant mentioned in verse 31 needs to be interpreted along the lines of a genuinely novel arrangement, rather than a restoration of the original."

A "novel arrangement" that has nothing to do with the Houses of Israel & Judah but the "salvation" of Gentiles who worship a tri-theistic deity on Sundays; a covenant that doesn't occur when "no longer shall one teach his neighbor ... saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest"; but one that occurs during a time of theological chaos when all we do is teach each other about G-d (when we're not killing each other). If the quoted Prophet doesn't support what the NT says he does, I don't assume the Prophet must have meant something else. I assume the NT is wrong.

"Jewish ways of dealing with these problems need to be held to the same standard as Christian ways of doing so"

Just like Christians are logically obligated to extend the same level playing field to Muslims and Mormons. Not. If their holy books aren't authorized by the NT to pop up and reinterpret or cancel the NT, you don't owe them the time of day. Similarly, if the Sinai Revelation doesn’t authorize a NT to replace it, the NT has no authority whatsoever. Notice how obvious this point is when it's raised as an objection to post-Christian traditions. If a Mormon told you Galatians 1:8 really means you should be on the lookout for John Smith you'd slam the door. But Christians are the World Champions at this fallacy, ignoring passages that adamantly deny “progressive revelation.”

"Held to the same standard"? Let's do some meta-theology: Please cite this objective "standard" and the source of its authority. The Children of Israel are under no "standard" to wax skeptical about their Mesorah (tradition). They're commanded to be fanatics, in the best sense of that word.

"Certainly, the Talmudic suggestion that the offerings in the temple are to be replaced by the prayers of the faithful has no basis in any 'explicit statement' of the Torah itself. The question isn't whether or not the Torah has been replaced, the question is which parts have been annulled and what they've been replaced by."

Inability to perform commandment X doesn't annul anything. If you don't have a Temple you can't perform Temple-related commandments. Restoring the Temple and observance of Temple-related commands is what Mashiach is supposed to accomplish -- in the way Jesus, bar Kokhba, Sabbetai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, and R' Schneerson didn't.

By this logic, inclusion of the Prophets and Writings in the canon is mere "Talmudic suggestion," and they're the source of most "messianic prophecies." The 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah was made up of the Sanhedrin and included Mordecai, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi, and Shimon HaTzadik. G-d used them to establish the Biblical canon just as He used them to compose the prayers. The Prophets and Writings were canonized to be read only until the coming of Mashiach, after which they will no longer be relevant. Similarly, the prayers haven't annulled eternal commands.

Last edited by 119 (7/31/2018 8:13 am)

 

7/31/2018 10:49 am  #49


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

I'm going to take this in the opposite direction and say that my disbelief in Christianity is not predicated on any historical assertions. That is to say, even if it were proven to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did in fact perform all the miracles he is said to have and even if he did rise from the dead - I still wouldn't go from Judaism to Christianity. Deuteronomy is quite clear that even in the face of miracles, one is forbidden to follow a prophet into idolatry. So no, even if a miracle did occur and Jesus rose from the dead I would still not worship him as a deity - an error made all the more idolatrous by Catholicism's subsequent doctrine of the real presence in the host. This error is compounded with the fact that Christianity seriously misunderstands the nature of the fallenness of man and its theological implications, as well as the necessity of the old law, the substance of Israel's mission in the world, and the ritual of blood sacrifice, all of which are misrepresented to serve Christianity's ends. Additionally, every purported Christian proof I have seen brought from scripture is nothing but a laughable misreading of the text, which is generally both mistranslated and torn out of context. So no, my (dis)belief in Christianity is not based on the truth or falsehood of the resurrection.

Edit: With regards to the "continuing miracles of the Catholic saints", Judaism is chock full of miracle stories as well - a relative of my wife's has been eyewitness to several of them done by Rabbi Yisrael Abuhatzeira. The Muslims and Eastern religions have many miracle workers as well. So yeah, not much to base on.

Last edited by Etzelnik (7/31/2018 2:11 pm)


Noli turbare circulos meos.
 

7/31/2018 12:39 pm  #50


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Etzelnik wrote:

So no, even if a miracle did occur and Jesus rose from the dead I would still not worship him as a deity - an error made all the more idolatrous by Catholicism's subsequent doctrine of the real presence in the host. This error is compounded with the fact that Christianity seriously misunderstands the nature of the fallenness of man and its theological implications, as well as the necessity of the old law, the substance of Israel's mission in the world, and the ritual of blood sacrifice, all of which are misrepresented to serve Christianity's ends. Additionally, every purported Christian proof I have seen brought from scripture is nothing but a laughable misreading of the text, which is generally both mistranslated and torn out of context. So no, my (dis)belief in Christianity is not based on the truth or falsehood of the resurrection.

​At least for me, the Catholic and Orthodox belief in the real presence, plus the Orthodox Christian understanding of original sin (probably sin in general) ​are part of the reasons I believe in Christianity.

​I wasn't born Jewish so I don't see any strong spiritual interest in Judaism, it's not my background so it doesn't seem a relevant or 'live' option.   
 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum