If It Does Not Happen Religion Falls Apart

[Icefrisco]

In olden times, we had a court that would declare the new month according to the sightings. This court was made up of judges who were empowered through a direct chain from Moses. This was a requirement. Today, no one has such authority to declare a new month. Thanks to the farsightedness of Rabbi Hillel the Prince, who was the last of the princes from the house of David, we have a calendar that has all of the months and holidays figured until the Jewish year 6000. According to the Jewish tradition, the Messiah will come by the year 6000 and the continuation of the calendar will be addressed then.

If the Messiah does not come does it not mean that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many smaller religions will not exist. Islam and Christianity are based from Judaism and if it is proven to be false then they would be fake too. If the Messiah does not come then doesnt religion fall apart?

[S.L.I.G]

Not really, see the Council of Nicea. Religion naturally changes over time, what was once Religious "fact" and was taught in Churches say, a 1000 years ago no longer is. Religion is simply a belief (God exists, more specifically for Christianity that Jesus was God's son sent here to testify for our sins) expressed by the majority of its followers. As time goes on, the very core of the Religion may remain the same, but everything in between is changed. Obviously there will be Conservative elements within said Religion that wont "Go with the times" so to speak, hence the various sects of Christianity and Islam. I know of very few people now who actually believe in the Messiah, I find it hard to believe that years from now, that anyone at all will.

[Blau&Gruen]

If the Messiah does not come then doesnt religion fall apart?

No, I rather doubt that. It is 5767 now, so we still have some time left, that something will cross our's mind, haven't we?

[Zenith Darksea]

If the Messiah does not come then doesnt religion fall apart?

You see, the problem with this argument is that...

He already came!

Judaism and Islam would undoubtedly fall apart, but Christianity would not.

Not really, see the Council of Nicea.

Ah, more pseudo-history. Been reading too much Dan Brown, eh? I think you'll find that the Council of Nicaea didn't change any doctrines. It clarified and officially proclaimed what was already believed, but it didn't change doctrine.

As time goes on, the very core of the Religion may remain the same, but everything in between is changed.

If that's what you think, then take a look at my signature. See the 'Greek Orthodox' userbar? Click on it, and see the not-so-shocking fact that Christianity might not have changed its beliefs at all since Christ. Once you put the example of 21st century America out of your head (excepting of course the Orthodox Church of America, which is the fastest and most consistently growing of all American Churches), you'll see that Christianity isn't all that bad after all.

[Blau&Gruen]

but Christianity would not

A christian fundamentalist told me, that the christian moshiach had to come twice and next time was the year 2000*.

*He told that before 2000.

[Blau&Gruen]

Islam would undoubtedly fall apart

Shiits expects the coming of the hidden Iman, what is also a kind of a messiah.

[S.L.I.G]

Ah, more pseudo-history. Been reading too much Dan Brown, eh? I think you'll find that the Council of Nicaea didn't change any doctrines. It clarified and officially proclaimed what was already believed, but it didn't change doctrine.

Uh, what are you going on about? First off, obviously I don't read Dan Brown considering its all fiction...which he has openly admitted IIRC. It didn't clarify and officially proclaim what was already believed, by all Christians. I wasn't trying to point out some hidden Conspiracy or whatever crap you may think I was, I was pointing out that even that early into the history of a major Religion, there needed to be clarification because the teachings were not entirely unified- Arians for an example. Of course there were plenty of splinter Christian faiths during its earliest days, I cant quite recall the name but I do remember there was one in Egypt that was actually very Shamanistic, but it died out rather quickly...

If that's what you think, then take a look at my signature. See the 'Greek Orthodox' userbar? Click on it, and see the not-so-shocking fact that Christianity might not have changed its beliefs at all since Christ.

Ehem, first off did I say all of Christianity changed? No, I said Religions in and of themselves are constantly changing since they are only opinions. Look at all the splinter factions of Christianity. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Arianism....hell Christianity itself is a splinter of Judaism.

Once you put the example of 21st century America out of your head (excepting of course the Orthodox Church of America, which is the fastest and most consistently growing of all American Churches), you'll see that Christianity isn't all that bad after all.

I do indeed wonder where I said Christianity was bad, or implied it in any way shape or form? Where are you pulling these assumptions from?

[Sosobra]

The faithful and can always say he will come later (ad infinitum) and there is no way to disprove that without a time machine and even then people will hold on to strong delusions in the face of overwhelming facts.

[Luftwaffels]

A christian fundamentalist told me, that the christian moshiach had to come twice and next time was the year 2000*.

*He told that before 2000.

Amazing, and I was once told that Islam was a religion of peace. Things don't always go by what people tell you.

[Serious Spamurai]

Actually, Islam will probably claim that this was just the type of "Jewish corruption" that caused Allah to send down 2 more prophets.

[David Deas]

Fundamentalists claim that according to Revelations, Christ will return one day.

In actuality he won't. But I if there is one thing I *do* have faith in, it's the ability of Christians to hallucinate.

[VoodooTengo]

It wouldn't destroy Islam or Christianity, because the Jesus and Muhammad respectively changed the doctrine of Judaism and added to it to create their religions.

Darksea- The Council of Nicea didn't officially establish prevalent beliefs of the time, it streamlined Christianity and combined the different local churchs into a form acceptable to the empire, and the pagans who were to be converted.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Darksea- The Council of Nicea didn't officially establish prevalent beliefs of the time, it streamlined Christianity and combined the different local churchs into a form acceptable to the empire, and the pagans who were to be converted.

The Council of Nicea did nothing more than let the various Churchs sort out the issue of the Arian controversy. Other than that it didn't "streamline" anything much. It didn't "combine the different churches" at all. And the pagans didn't give much of a toss about technical Christian theological debates about whether the Son was "one in being with the Father" or "proceeded from the Father".

As Zenith correctly points out, the idea that Nicea had any kind of political agenda beyond healing a theological rift in Christianity is a myth.

[VoodooTengo]

As Zenith correctly points out, the idea that Nicea had any kind of political agenda beyond healing a theological rift in Christianity is a myth.

No its not, it was the empire asserting control over the unified church, by showing it had the ability to call a council that effected all of Christianity for the first time, and that any decision they made would be enforced by the empire, huge political agenda.

Edit: I guess i dont know much about islam, but christianity would not fall apart, as they believe the messiah has already come and that juidism is wrong in waiting for him, so from a christian point of view if the messiah did come by then, that would destroy Christianity, but nothing else.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

No its not, it was the empire asserting control over the unified church, by showing it had the ability to call a council that effected all of Christianity for the first time, and that any decision they made would be enforced by the empire, huge political agenda.

Nonsense. It was Constantine recognising that the religion he had legalised was far from unified and applying his broader policy of consensus to it. He had little understanding of the issue the Council came together to discuss (he dismissed it as "quibbling"), got bored by the debates after a day or so and left the Council to its own devices. He couldn't care less about which side of the debate eventually won consensus (in fact, he was later baptised by a priest of the losing side), so long as they settled the dispute.

You seem to have bought into this pseudo historical myth that Nicea somehow skewed Christianity into some kind of political tool of the Empire. Constantine and his successors actually found the fractious and divided Christian churches (note the plural) to be a royal pain in the butt.

But at least you haven't claimed that Nicea voted to turn Jesus from a mortal prophet into a God or that the Bible was decided on at Nicea.

Speaking of which ...

constantine clearly built his empire upon the idea of christianity and as such it BENEFITTED HIM immensely to allow the convocation of bishops-- the council of nicea was POLITICAL in nature--- under the guise of religion

See above. His sole aim was to get Christianity to stop its internal squabbling.

even though long standing religious results occured most of the ruling class and those associated with constantine had converted to christianity- and to be christian became an unofficial way to show your official connection to the emperor---

Most of the ruling class resisted conversion for another two centuries. Christianity remained a religion of the lower classes for a long time.

because the council did only largely agree on what should be the acceptable canon of the Already written works of the various churches of the lands---

Why do people keep repeating this utter nonsense? The canon of the Bible was not even discussed at Nicea. See here for details.

each church held different books in esteem and it could be said that the chosen canon reflected constantines desires for empire more than any religious choices

This is total fantasy. How could the canon of the Bible be part of Constantine's agenda at Nicea if it wasn't even discussed? Get your facts straight.

but He did in fact have to sign off on the document which made him the HEAD OF THE CHURCH-- to say that this council was in no way influenced by the political motivations and desires of constantine is a little silly from my perspective

And this "document which made him the HEAD OF THE CHURCH" is more fantasy. What on earth are you talking about?

[VoodooTengo]

Nonsense. It was Constantine recognising that the religion he had legalised was far from unified and applying his broader policy of consensus to it. He had little understanding of the issue the Council came together to discuss (he dismissed it as "quibbling"), got bored by the debates after a day or so and left the Council to its own devices. He couldn't care less about which side of the debate eventually won consensus (in fact, he was later baptised by a priest of the losing side), so long as they settled the dispute.

You seem to have bought into this pseudo historical myth that Nicea somehow skewed Christianity into some kind of political tool of the Empire. Constantine and his successors actually found the fractious and divided Christian churches (note the plural) to be a royal pain in the butt.

This kind of proves that he was politically motivated to call it doesnt it seeing as he didnt really care about it?Since just wanted them to reach a consenes, and leaving early and stuff, the only motivation he could have had to call it was to show his control over the religion. I think you may have proved my point.

[jankren]

Jesus was the Messiah of Islam so he already came. It is the Jews who have denied the status of Jesus as the Messiah. Anyway, I seriously dont really understand what the OP is actually trying to say.

[Icefrisco]

Here is my arguement:

Wouldn't any smart and intelligent person understand that if the religion his is based on turns out to be false would that not mean his own religion is false?

Islam and Christianity were created from Judaism, without it they can not survive.

Heres a good analogy: Like a leaf, it comes from a branch but without the branch will shrivel up.

[Earl of Rochester]

Here is my arguement:

Wouldn't any smart and intelligent person understand that if the religion his is based on turns out to be false would that not mean his own religion is false?

Islam and Christianity were created from Judaism, without it they can not survive.

Heres a good analogy: Like a leaf, it comes from a branch but without the branch will shrivel up.

Any smart and intelligent person would realize that a majority of people only believe in religion with the tops of their heads, so logical inconsistencies within their beliefs really don't affect them too much.

[Blau&Gruen]

Heres a good analogy:
Like a leaf, it comes from a branch but without the branch will shrivel up.

It is a good analogy, nevertheless a problematic metaphor, if you understand it politically, because the verse starts with "And there is still a tenth in her (the land) ... ."