The Bible Is Not a Public Policy Manual

[AnimatedDirt]

Exactly right.  You think you have all the answers and (if God is) know better than He.

Simply put.  Pride.

It's not about having all the answers, "knowing the Truth", knowing more than anyone or anything else, but about not being convinced by the story the bible writers/compliers were telling.  Or that any bible promoters after them have been pushing. 

It's about honesty, simply put.  If I were being prideful, I'd say it was about having standards as well but I'm not being prideful.

Ahh...but it is.  When all is said and done the Atheist puts faith in his/her own knowledge (which includes that of other men) whether you want to call it "honesty" or whatever, it boils down to pride.

[Crow]

I haven't heard this one before, so why would a god hypothetically decide to impart wisdom to the "Christian infants" centuries before waiting to give the rest of the information to the "grown up Christians"?

The same reason a child starts in school learning the basics of education and progressing.  However, the plan of salvation has always been the same from the very beginning (see Genesis 3:21) it has never been different.

That doesn't make sense unless you are saying it took centuries for humanity to be mentally ready for the next teachings. But that's absurd as there wasn't anything new that came with Jesus that wasn't already being discussed throughout the world at that time of the Jewish scriptures.

[AnimatedDirt]

I haven't heard this one before, so why would a god hypothetically decide to impart wisdom to the "Christian infants" centuries before waiting to give the rest of the information to the "grown up Christians"?

The same reason a child starts in school learning the basics of education and progressing.  However, the plan of salvation has always been the same from the very beginning (see Genesis 3:21) it has never been different.

That doesn't make sense unless you are saying it took centuries for humanity to be mentally ready for the next teachings. But that's absurd as there wasn't anything new that came with Jesus that wasn't already being discussed throughout the world at that time of the Jewish scriptures.

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

[fester30]

I haven't heard this one before, so why would a god hypothetically decide to impart wisdom to the "Christian infants" centuries before waiting to give the rest of the information to the "grown up Christians"?

The same reason a child starts in school learning the basics of education and progressing.  However, the plan of salvation has always been the same from the very beginning (see Genesis 3:21) it has never been different.

That doesn't make sense unless you are saying it took centuries for humanity to be mentally ready for the next teachings. But that's absurd as there wasn't anything new that came with Jesus that wasn't already being discussed throughout the world at that time of the Jewish scriptures.

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

Jesus said he wasn't there to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  He was apparently executed for going against the Jewish establishment, not the Jewish law.

[Stevil]

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

It might pay to re-read the bible. The Romans put Jesus on the cross because Jesus was being a dick and disrupting the peace.

[Stevil]

Ahh...but it is.  When all is said and done the Atheist puts faith in his/her own knowledge (which includes that of other men) whether you want to call it "honesty" or whatever, it boils down to pride.

A human becomes mature and independant when they reach adulthood. They then reach an ability to think things through and make decisions.
Some adults find the responsibility of being an adult scary so they seek guidance from others be it imaginary sources or other human sources.

I would highly recommend the "grow up and start making your own decisions" route.

[AnimatedDirt]

I haven't heard this one before, so why would a god hypothetically decide to impart wisdom to the "Christian infants" centuries before waiting to give the rest of the information to the "grown up Christians"?

The same reason a child starts in school learning the basics of education and progressing.  However, the plan of salvation has always been the same from the very beginning (see Genesis 3:21) it has never been different.

That doesn't make sense unless you are saying it took centuries for humanity to be mentally ready for the next teachings. But that's absurd as there wasn't anything new that came with Jesus that wasn't already being discussed throughout the world at that time of the Jewish scriptures.

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

Jesus said he wasn't there to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  He was apparently executed for going against the Jewish establishment, not the Jewish law.

Certainly, but look at the NT Gospels.  It's full of the Jewish religious leaders going after Jesus and his disciples over their apparent mis-keeping of their law(s) (in that they added how to keep the law)  and mostly, the Sabbath.

[AnimatedDirt]

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

It might pay to re-read the bible. The Romans put Jesus on the cross because Jesus was being a dick and disrupting the peace.

Thank you for your condesending words.

The Romans physically put Jesus on the cross...you are correct.

[Stevil]

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

It might pay to re-read the bible. The Romans put Jesus on the cross because Jesus was being a dick and disrupting the peace.

Thank you for your condesending words.

The Romans physically put Jesus on the cross...you are correct.

Condesending of Jesus, not you AD.
The Romans were the rulers of the land. They did not look to the Jewish elders for guidance on policy or law enforcement. The Romans spent a lot of effort conquering people so that they themselves could rule over them.

Constantine (a roman) commissioned putting the Christian bible together, he decided which story books made it into the bible, I am sure he made some edits as well, and low and behold, the Christians blame the Jews (Jesus was Jewish BTW) rather than the Romans.
Well done Constantine, that was too easy.

[Too Few Lions]

Sure there was.  The Jews put Christ on the cross for going against Jewish law...

It might pay to re-read the bible. The Romans put Jesus on the cross because Jesus was being a dick and disrupting the peace.

Thank you for your condesending words.

The Romans physically put Jesus on the cross...you are correct.

Condesending of Jesus, not you AD.
The Romans were the rulers of the land. They did not look to the Jewish elders for guidance on policy or law enforcement. The Romans spent a lot of effort conquering people so that they themselves could rule over them.

Constantine (a roman) commissioned putting the Christian bible together, he decided which story books made it into the bible, I am sure he made some edits as well, and low and behold, the Christians blame the Jews (Jesus was Jewish BTW) rather than the Romans.
Well done Constantine, that was too easy.

But the Romans had no reason to crucify Jesus, they didn't go around crucifying every apocalyptic philosopher they came across. According to the NT Jesus was tried for blasphemy, but the Romans didn't have blasphemy laws. They believed the gods were powerful enough to defend themselves.

Personally I think it's all a myth anyway, Jesus' trial is too similar to Socrates' trial for my liking. Plus it all happens over the Passover and it was against Jewish law for a court to sit during a religious holiday, it's like having a court sitting on Christmas Day. But if there's a kernel of truth behind the story, it would have been the Jews that had a problem with Jesus and not the Romans. I think it's become commonplace to blame the Romans for Jesus' death these days because they're not around to defend themselves, and plenty of Christian anti-Semitism has come about from blaming the Jews for Jesus' death in the past.

But I can also see your point that it would have been easier for the early Christians to blame the Jews for Jesus' death than the Romans. Mind you, given that they went around telling everyone else that they worshipped false gods and would burn in hell, they weren't too worried about pissing people off.

[Stevil]

But if there's a kernel of truth behind the story, it would have been the Jews that had a problem with Jesus and not the Romans. I think it's become commonplace to blame the Romans for Jesus' death these days because they're not around to defend themselves, and plenty of Christian anti-Semitism has come about from blaming the Jews for Jesus' death in the past.

I disagree,
If we take as a given that the Romans, not the Jews, were the rulers of the land, that the Jews were ruled as conquered people. That the Romans controlled the Roman justice system. If we allow ourselves the luxury of imagining that Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans then we must conclude that the Roman's tried and found Jesus guilty of a crime that was befitting of death based on Roman law and politics.

It the Romans were to create a religious book based on Jesus, they would be doing themselves a favour by saying that it wasn't them who decided Jesus was to die.

What I don't get about this religion is that it is all based on the crucification and resurrection.
Therefore in my mind, Judas and the Romans ought to be seen as heros playing a key role in martyring Jesus, by carrying out god's cunning plan, so that all of humanity can be washed of their "sins" and hence enter heaven for eternal happiness. Judas ought to be a Saint.

[Stevil]

Anyway, there is enough doubt to suggest that we ought not be casting any stones of blame.
Also, it is never an honest thing to condem a whole race of people.

I get told off as being condescending for telling a Christian to reread the bible.
How do think the Jews would feel for being blamed, as a race, for Jesus death?

[Too Few Lions]

But if there's a kernel of truth behind the story, it would have been the Jews that had a problem with Jesus and not the Romans. I think it's become commonplace to blame the Romans for Jesus' death these days because they're not around to defend themselves, and plenty of Christian anti-Semitism has come about from blaming the Jews for Jesus' death in the past.

I disagree,
If we take as a given that the Romans, not the Jews, were the rulers of the land, that the Jews were ruled as conquered people. That the Romans controlled the Roman justice system. If we allow ourselves the luxury of imagining that Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans then we must conclude that the Roman's tried and found Jesus guilty of a crime that was befitting of death based on Roman law and politics.

disagreement's good, I generally find myself agreeing with most of what you post! If you believe that to be the case, what crime had Jesus committed by Roman law to deserve crucifixion? I'm not sure there is one. Plus the Roman Empire wasn't as centralised as you're imagining, Judaea was a fairly autonomous province, it was of little importance to the Romans, and so long as taxes were paid they had little interest in its internal affairs.

It the Romans were to create a religious book based on Jesus, they would be doing themselves a favour by saying that it wasn't them who decided Jesus was to die.

That's true and I couldn't rule it out, some have gone as far as to suggest that Christianity may have been a Roman creation to try and destroy Judaism. But it may also represent what the original now lost gospels said, and they were most probably written by Hellenised Jews / proto-Christians, many of whom were very unfond of 'pagan' Romans. But yeah, the Jews were certainly a softer target for blame than the Romans.

What I don't get about this religion is that it is all based on the crucification and resurrection.
Therefore in my mind, Judas and the Romans ought to be seen as heros playing a key role in martyring Jesus, by carrying out god's cunning plan, so that all of humanity can be washed of their "sins" and hence enter heaven for eternal happiness. Judas ought to be a Saint.

nice idea! I'm sure AD and Bruce would agree with you too  Yeah it is all based on the crucifixion and resurrection. I actually think that's mythological / cosmological, I keep meaning to do a thread on the mythological dimensions of the crucifixion, will have to sometime soon.

[Too Few Lions]

Anyway, there is enough doubt to suggest that we ought not be casting any stones of blame.
Also, it is never an honest thing to condem a whole race of people.

I get told off as being condescending for telling a Christian to reread the bible.
How do think the Jews would feel for being blamed, as a race, for Jesus death?

I agree entirely, although technically the Jews aren't a race, they're a religion. The Jews have suffered massively at the hands of Christians because of supposedly killing Jesus, and I think that's largely why the Romans tend to be blamed these days. No-one's going to persecute any Italians over what Romans did 2000 years ago!

[Stevil]

If you believe that to be the case, what crime had Jesus committed by Roman law to deserve crucifixion? I'm not sure there is one.

Do I have to have a specific alternative in order to disprove the option provided?
I am merely stating that the option provided has some serious inconsistencies thus I believe cannot be trusted as fact.

Plus the Roman Empire wasn't as centralised as you're imagining, Judaea was a fairly autonomous province, it was of little importance to the Romans, and so long as taxes were paid they had little interest in its internal affairs.

So why was it that the Romans performed the crucification? I am red raw with the inconsistencies that are slapping across my face here.