QuotePaul clearly established a demarcation between Christians judging matters within the community of believers (allowed) and matters outside the community of believers (not allowed). At the very least, this suggests that Christians who think they can impose what they perceive as "biblical values" on secular society are -- more often than not -- wrong. There's simply no way to translate the Bible into concrete public policy, at least not without a considerable degree of ambiguity.
The Bible Is Not a Public Policy Manual (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-taylor/bible-not-a-public-policy-manual_b_1299978.html?ref=religion)
What if more churches held this thinking? I know the church I attend does while many more do the opposite.
John 18:36:
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world...
I really wish more Christians would adhere to that and keep to themselves.
I would have to agree with the writer of the article. There are many elements in the bible that I wish the followers of said book(s) would follow - such as the part about public displays of worship (can't remember the exact quote or where it is but maybe Gawen or AD can help) - but its not up to me (and certainly don't want that to be the case) or anyone else to impose what other people believe or think.
Quote from: Crow on March 02, 2012, 01:08:54 AM
I would have to agree with the writer of the article. There are many elements in the bible that I wish the followers of said book(s) would follow - such as the part about public displays of worship (can't remember the exact quote or where it is but maybe Gawen or AD can help) - but its not up to me (and certainly don't want that to be the case) or anyone else to impose what other people believe or think.
Matthew 6:5? Or somewhere close, anyway.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
What if more churches held this thinking?
My guess is about 90% of the contention between Xtians and non-Xtians would disappear overnight.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 02, 2012, 01:24:10 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
What if more churches held this thinking?
My guess is about 90% of the contention between Xtians and non-Xtians would disappear overnight.
definite, let's just hope Rick Santorum's read the article. I thought the article itself was very selective in its use of scripture, but I agree with the sentiment.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 02, 2012, 01:24:10 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
What if more churches held this thinking?
My guess is about 90% of the contention between Xtians and non-Xtians would disappear overnight.
Yeah, wouldn't that be nice? Ah, but a dream for now.
Yes, if Christians looked inwards e.g. used their beliefs as a guide on how to live their own lives rather than outwards as a guide on how to judge or control others, then I would have absolutely no problems with them.
We have "St Matthew's in the City" every now and then they put up some pretty awesome billboard, ones I can even appreciate. But then other churches, especially Catholic ones, get all irate and tear them down or throw paint over them, or protest and publicly pray (as if they are scared that the wrath of god will come down on them just for being in the vicinity of "St Matthew's in the City"). These protesters do themselves no favors whatsoever.
Take care of your own house, don't be distracted by what's going on next door!
I don't know that it's fair to ask people to lay down their deeply-held beliefs, agree or disagree, in cases of politics and public policy, as long as people are, at the heart, attempting to do what they feel is best for the country. It may be a somewhat weak argument, but there are members of Congress that are using other books written by Ayn Rand as their guide to setting public policy. There are people who use outdated Economics books for the same reason. These books appeared to be valid decades ago, and many people still believe in them.
Even though I feel I am superior to others (lol), I don't feel my superior intellect and beliefs should be disallowed from being considered in public policy. I hate that the Bible has given some bigots ammunition for establishing legal discrimination, but I actually think some level of discrimination perhaps would have existed without the Bible. Religion is just one convenient way for leaders to get followers to go with them into wars whose real purpose are competition for resources or one crazy man's quest for power. I think a lot of the racism and segregation in the South occurred due to competition for jobs and resources, and some biblical passages were used to justify it.
It doesn't take a Bible to come up with bad ideas.
Quote from: Stevil on March 02, 2012, 06:13:22 PM
Yes, if Christians looked inwards e.g. used their beliefs as a guide on how to live their own lives rather than outwards as a guide on how to judge or control others, then I would have absolutely no problems with them.
We Christians are not perfect...not even close. Our human minds tell us to share our "higher" morals and that it would be best if the world followed these (I think it would be). The problem is that we take the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) out of order. We take the last of the "go and do" and put it first. The Great Commission does not tell us to go out and make everyone bend to God's law, the world does not and CANNOT do so. (Romans 8:5-7). Instead it says make disciples and baptize...First you
make a follower of Christ, then teach them to follow that which Christ says...not the other way around.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
Instead it says make disciples and baptize...First you make a follower of Christ, then teach them to follow that which Christ says...not the other way around.
My motto is, Unless it harms you, live and let live.
I have no interest in turning a person towards atheism and I dislike evangelism hence I do not give to Christian charities because their charitable efforts always come with evangelism.
Quote from: Stevil on March 02, 2012, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
Instead it says make disciples and baptize...First you make a follower of Christ, then teach them to follow that which Christ says...not the other way around.
My motto is, Unless it harms you, live and let live.
I have no interest in turning a person towards atheism and I dislike evangelism hence I do not give to Christian charities because their charitable efforts always come with evangelism.
The cliche' rings true for the Christian...that if God is, then something better than this world awaits us, therefore we share this in the realization that all can gain. If the Christian is wrong...then nothing was gained
OR lost as religion is then simply a sociocultural by-product in the evolution of man.
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
The cliche' rings true for the Christian...that if God is, then something better than this world awaits us, therefore we share this in the realization that all can gain. If the Christian is wrong...then nothing was gained OR lost as religion is then simply a sociocultural by-product in the evolution of man.
Interesting rewording of Pasqual's Wager.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
From your wording it sounds like you are still thinking that atheism is a religion. it is not.
Atheism wouldn't even be an -ism if it wasn't for religions prevalence in society. Without religion to compare itself with, the consept of being atheist would be meaningless. If religion was stamp collecting, would you go around saying you were a non-stamp collector?
Atheists don't evangelize because "atheism" doesn't have a doctrine or canon to proseletyze. Other then for the most part common sense and logical thinking.
Atheism wouldn't even be an -ism if it wasn't for religions prevalence in society. Without religion to compare itself with, the conspt of being atheist would be meaningless. If religion was stamp collecting, would you go around saying you were a non-stamp collector?
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 02, 2012, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
The cliche' rings true for the Christian...that if God is, then something better than this world awaits us, therefore we share this in the realization that all can gain. If the Christian is wrong...then nothing was gained OR lost as religion is then simply a sociocultural by-product in the evolution of man.
Interesting rewording of Pasqual's Wager.
Thank you? ;) (unintentional)
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 02, 2012, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
From your wording it sounds like you are still thinking that atheism is a religion. it is not.
Atheism wouldn't even be an -ism if it wasn't for religions prevalence in society. Without religion to compare itself with, the consept of being atheist would be meaningless. If religion was stamp collecting, would you go around saying you were a non-stamp collector?
Atheists don't evangelize because "atheism" doesn't have a doctrine or canon to proseletyze. Other then for the most part common sense and logical thinking.
Atheism wouldn't even be an -ism if it wasn't for religions prevalence in society. Without religion to compare itself with, the conspt of being atheist would be meaningless. If religion was stamp collecting, would you go around saying you were a non-stamp collector?
Heh...me trying to argue that Atheism is a religion? Whatever I believe on the matter is of no real consequence. I'm simply stating/asking that if religion is wrong, then it would seem that the promotion of Atheism would be in the best interest of Man. It was a question to the Atheist.
I see a doctrine of sorts...that being Free Thinking, Common Sense, Logical Thinking, Scientific evidence...all these things can be a tool(s) for working towards a better society without religion. Just asking.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
The cliche' rings true for the Christian...that if God is, then something better than this world awaits us, therefore we share this in the realization that all can gain. If the Christian is wrong...then nothing was gained OR lost as religion is then simply a sociocultural by-product in the evolution of man.
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
At the moment, I am quite keen to promote tolerance, acceptance and appreciation for diversity. To promote an ideal that law ought to be used to make us and our society safe rather than moral.
I think my message is appropriate for religious and non religious alike.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 10:26:08 PM
I see a doctrine of sorts...that being Free Thinking, Common Sense, Logical Thinking, Scientific evidence...all these things can be a tool(s) for working towards a better society without religion. Just asking.
If you want to call it a doctrine to apply the same rules of reasoning and evidence to the question of religion as you do to the rest of your life, then you might have a point.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
Most of us don't know that atheism is true, we simply haven't been given a good reason or evidence to think otherwise. And even if we could actually prove there were no gods (good luck proving a negative) that's still no reason to evangelize -- did you miss the "live and let live" part of Stevil's post?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
I think the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist, but like most other atheists on this forum, I believe in individual freedoms. As long as Christians or Muslims don't try and force me to live by their beliefs and rules I'm happy to live and let live and let them hold whatever beliefs they choose. Unfortunately, historically both religions have forced their beliefs on people and had active programs of forcible conversion. I think it can be hard for Christians or Muslims to accept that rules they believe are handed down from 'God' are no more valid than the rules I choose to live my life by.
Plus on a personal level, I don't like pushy salespeople, and that's all evangelists are to me, people trying to push their beliefs on others. To evangelise atheism would be to become that which I and many other atheists dislike.
Proselytizing is just tacky. Attempting to push beliefs specific to one's religious worldview into civil law is even more so.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 03, 2012, 05:35:48 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 09:26:59 PM
I can certainly understand why you wouldn't give to Christian charities, however if Atheism is true, wouldn't it be in the best interest of Man that Atheism evangelize?
Most of us don't know that atheism is true, we simply haven't been given a good reason or evidence to think otherwise. And even if we could actually prove there were no gods (good luck proving a negative) that's still no reason to evangelize -- did you miss the "live and let live" part of Stevil's post?
That's an interesting comment given my experience on HAF and the way the outspoken Atheists "speak" of and at the Christians here when in discussion. It's certainly NOT in the sense of equal positions, one not being able to prove their belief and the other not being able to prove their disbelief...
I guess my position on this evangelize thinking stems from my Christian bias. I can't help but feel one would try and educate their neighbor into the truth...if it were known.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:25:27 PM
I guess my position on this evangelize thinking stems from my Christian bias. I can't help but feel one would try and educate their neighbor into the truth...if it were known.
What if your belief is wrong? What if the Mormons got it right?
If you manage to convert someone to 7th day.. then effectively you are damning them to your own fate, because you got it wrong.
Does that not worry you?
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 06:38:03 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:25:27 PM
I guess my position on this evangelize thinking stems from my Christian bias. I can't help but feel one would try and educate their neighbor into the truth...if it were known.
What if your belief is wrong? What if the Mormons got it right?
If you manage to convert someone to 7th day.. then effectively you are damning them to your own fate, because you got it wrong.
Does that not worry you?
Likewise...if you've got it wrong...aren't you worried you're damning them literally to "eternal hell-fire"? (I see HAF as a sort of evangelism)
I'm not worried in the least. If I convert someone, it's not about being SDA. It's plainly a relationship with Christ. It matters not whether one is SDA, Lutheran, Methodist, R Catholic, Mormon...or even of no religious affiliation. A person need only submit to the Creator and place their life in His hand. Scripture leads to God, it doesn't lead to a specific religion. Religion is Man's creation...not God's.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
Likewise...if you've got it wrong...aren't you worried you're damning them literally to "eternal hell-fire"? (I see HAF as a sort of evangelism)
I'm not worried because I don't try and convert people. I lack a belief in gods, but I have no proof that there are no gods, I therefore don't go around telling people that there are definitely no gods.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
I'm not worried in the least. If I convert someone, it's not about being SDA. It's plainly a relationship with Christ. It matters not whether one is SDA, Lutheran, Methodist, R Catholic, Mormon...or even of no religious affiliation. A person need only submit to the Creator and place their life in His hand. Scripture leads to God, it doesn't lead to a specific religion. Religion is Man's creation...not God's.
So why bother calling yourself a Christian? Christianity is a religion right?
Can't you simply say, "OK god created everything, wow that's neat", and then move on with your life, until of course, science works out how life came to be.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
So why bother calling yourself a Christian? Christianity is a religion right?
Can't you simply say, "OK god created everything, wow that's neat", and then move on with your life, until of course, science works out how life came to be.
Because being a Christian defines my belief system overall while my label as a Seventh-day Adventist gives a more specific idea of how scripture is interpreted. All Christians have the same core beliefs while some hold some secondary beliefs different...like the day of worship. Sunday vs. Saturday or are the dead simply dead or do they go to heaven the moment they die...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
So why bother calling yourself a Christian? Christianity is a religion right?
Can't you simply say, "OK god created everything, wow that's neat", and then move on with your life, until of course, science works out how life came to be.
Because being a Christian defines my belief system overall while my label as a Seventh-day Adventist gives a more specific idea of how scripture is interpreted. All Christians have the same core beliefs while some hold some secondary beliefs different...like the day of worship. Sunday vs. Saturday or are the dead simply dead or do they go to heaven the moment they die...
So if you are to be consistent with
Quote
It matters not whether one is SDA, Lutheran, Methodist, R Catholic, Mormon...or even of no religious affiliation. A person need only submit to the Creator and place their life in His hand.
Then it matters not if you are a Muslim, Buddist, Hindu...
So again, why bother subscribing to Christianity or belonging to SDA? Use your mental powers to tell the Creator (in your head) that you submit, and then move on, live your life but mentally realise that your life is in the hand of your creator.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:34:33 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
So why bother calling yourself a Christian? Christianity is a religion right?
Can't you simply say, "OK god created everything, wow that's neat", and then move on with your life, until of course, science works out how life came to be.
Because being a Christian defines my belief system overall while my label as a Seventh-day Adventist gives a more specific idea of how scripture is interpreted. All Christians have the same core beliefs while some hold some secondary beliefs different...like the day of worship. Sunday vs. Saturday or are the dead simply dead or do they go to heaven the moment they die...
So if you are to be consistent with
Quote
It matters not whether one is SDA, Lutheran, Methodist, R Catholic, Mormon...or even of no religious affiliation. A person need only submit to the Creator and place their life in His hand.
Then it matters not if you are a Muslim, Buddist, Hindu...
So again, why bother subscribing to Christianity or belonging to SDA? Use your mental powers to tell the Creator (in your head) that you submit, and then move on, live your life but mentally realise that your life is in the hand of your creator.
Right. As long as a person submits to the Creator and puts their life in His hands, it matters not whether they call themselves Atheist. It's not simply about saying some words. By their fruit...
A believer is not saved by what he/she does, however what he/she does proves what he/she believes.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 07:43:59 PM
Right. As long as a person submits to the Creator and puts their life in His hands, it matters not whether they call themselves Atheist. It's not simply about saying some words. By their fruit...
A believer is not saved by what he/she does, however what he/she does proves what he/she believes.
It's somewhat interesting to hear you say this because it is absolutely contradictory to what is in the bible.
I, as an atheist am supposed to be condemned, because I don't believe in a god, regardless of how I live my life. I could obey all of the Christian laws, the ones that matter with regards to how I interact with humanity. But I cannot obey the unimportant ones, the ones that are only an imaginary state of mind, e.g. believe in god.
And because of this imaginary issue, I am condemned.
I couldn't care less, I have no belief in this stuff. Just pointing out that it is contradictory to what you are saying.
Oh, and it is interesting to me that AD focuses on Christianity, we he recognises that the specific religion is human made and unimportant. To me this points out that it is distractive noise with regards to what is actually important.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 08:33:17 PM
It's somewhat interesting to hear you say this because it is absolutely contradictory to what is in the bible.
I, as an atheist am supposed to be condemned, because I don't believe in a god, regardless of how I live my life. I could obey all of the Christian laws, the ones that matter with regards to how I interact with humanity. But I cannot obey the unimportant ones, the ones that are only an imaginary state of mind, e.g. believe in god.
And because of this imaginary issue, I am condemned.
Exactly right. You think you have all the answers and (if God is) know better than He.
Simply put. Pride.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
Oh, and it is interesting to me that AD focuses on Christianity, we he recognises that the specific religion is human made and unimportant. To me this points out that it is distractive noise with regards to what is actually important.
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ. No religion. It's not about a set of rules to follow, it's why you follow.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ.
This is contradictory, to assert "through Christ" you are asserting Christianity, it is as simple as that.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:21:18 PM
Exactly right. You think you have all the answers and (if God is) know better than He.
Simply put. Pride.
Huh?
Am I proud that I know all the answers?
I have never stated, nor do I think that I have all the answer. The "all the answers" mantra is that held by religious belief.
Am I proud that I know more than "He"?
Who is this "He", a fictional imaginary character?
My neighbour's cat know more than "He". The bar isn't set very high here.
I am proud of my children though, they are wonderful kids. I am also proud of my wife, she is a terrific wife and mother and person. I am so very proud of them.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ.
This is contradictory, to assert "through Christ" you are asserting Christianity, it is as simple as that.
Of course I assert Christianity...I am Christian. The bible states it is through Christ... Which part is contradictory?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
Oh, and it is interesting to me that AD focuses on Christianity, we he recognises that the specific religion is human made and unimportant. To me this points out that it is distractive noise with regards to what is actually important.
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ. No religion. It's not about a set of rules to follow, it's why you follow.
I couldn't disagree with you more AD, have you read the Old Testament? It was written by priests of Yahweh in the 9th-6th centuries BCE and it's largely based around promoting the worship of one Israelite god, Yahweh, and denigrating and outlawing the worship of other Israelite gods such as Baal and Asherah. It's religious intolerance incarnate. It's also full of laws and rules telling the common man what they have to do. The Old Testament is a large part of every Bible, and it's not a pleasant book, neither on a literary level, nor on a historical level given the fanaticism and intolerance it's a product of.
The bible promotes the worship of Yahweh, that's the god the writers of it believed in. It promotes the worship of that god over the worship of Zeus, Baal, Odin, Osiris, Marduk etc etc. Plus the New Testament promotes Jesus, only Christians believe he is the son of any god and some sort of saviour, and only Christians define their god by his relationship to Jesus. All other faiths can believe in God(s) that don't involve any mention or involvement of someone called Jesus.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ.
This is contradictory, to assert "through Christ" you are asserting Christianity, it is as simple as that.
Of course I assert Christianity...I am Christian. The bible states it is through Christ... Which part is contradictory?
Grrrrr
Quote
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another
Swings and roundabouts
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
Oh, and it is interesting to me that AD focuses on Christianity, we he recognises that the specific religion is human made and unimportant. To me this points out that it is distractive noise with regards to what is actually important.
The bible (and therefore God) does not promote one religion over another, but puts forth God only and that life everlasting is only through Christ. No religion. It's not about a set of rules to follow, it's why you follow.
I couldn't disagree with you more AD, have you read the Old Testament? It was written by priests of Yahweh in the 9th-6th centuries BCE and it's largely based around promoting the worship of one Israelite god, Yahweh, and denigrating and outlawing the worship of other Israelite gods such as Baal and Asherah. It's religious intolerance incarnate. It's also full of laws and rules telling the common man what they have to do. The Old Testament is a large part of every Bible, and it's not a pleasant book, neither on a literary level, nor on a historical level given the fanaticism and intolerance it's a product of.
The bible promotes the worship of Yahweh, that's the god the writers of it believed in. It promotes the worship of that god over the worship of Zeus, Baal, Odin, Osiris, Marduk etc etc. Plus the New Testament promotes Jesus, only Christians believe he is the son of any god and some sort of saviour, and only Christians define their god by his relationship to Jesus. All other faiths can believe in God(s) that don't involve any mention or involvement of someone called Jesus.
Maybe I need to clarify. I acknowledge the OT is full of laws and promotes God. However "God" is not a religion. IF there is any religion the bible promotes, it promotes the "religion" of the bible. It does not promote the Jewish religion, nor the Christian per se. It promotes itself as the only manner in which to gain salvation from death...and that is through only Jesus Christ, or so it claims. The diverse religions are simply differing interpretations by Man of that bible. However there is not one religion that is totally correct. So God's people are in all religions...we cannot assume just because one call him/herself a Hindu that they are lost. Only God knows (or claims to know) the heart.
The OT is the time of God's people when they were "Christian infants" if you will. So there is a lot of do's and don'ts there and much punishment for not following God's law. The NT is the "grown up" Christian that while the law still stands and whatever consequences in not following that law remains, the literal punishment is not enforced. (the easiest way I know to put it without getting into sounding preachy.)
If there is a specific question, I can attempt to answer though I don't have all the answers.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 11:55:26 PM
The OT is the time of God's people when they were "Christian infants" if you will. So there is a lot of do's and don'ts there and much punishment for not following God's law. The NT is the "grown up" Christian that while the law still stands and whatever consequences in not following that law remains, the literal punishment is not enforced. (the easiest way I know to put it without getting into sounding preachy.)
If there is a specific question, I can attempt to answer though I don't have all the answers.
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"?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 11:55:26 PM
Maybe I need to clarify. I acknowledge the OT is full of laws and promotes God. However "God" is not a religion. IF there is any religion the bible promotes, it promotes the "religion" of the bible. It does not promote the Jewish religion, nor the Christian per se. It promotes itself as the only manner in which to gain salvation from death...and that is through only Jesus Christ, or so it claims. The diverse religions are simply differing interpretations by Man of that bible. However there is not one religion that is totally correct. So God's people are in all religions...we cannot assume just because one call him/herself a Hindu that they are lost. Only God knows (or claims to know) the heart.
that's a very Christian interpretation of the Bible, and obviously not the interpretation I have of it as a non-Christian. For me it doesn't promote 'God', it promotes Yahweh, a specific god. The OT promotes the worship of Yahweh that was to become Judaism in later times, but it also promotes the worship of Yahweh in a specific religious manner, sacrificing only at the temple, linking that god to Jerusalem and the Judaean royal Davidic family, and following lots of other very specific rules. It's very much promoting a specific god and a specific way of worshipping that god, and for me that's a religion.
Plus we've got to remember that the Bible is a product of religions, without Judaism or Christianity it wouldn't exist. The OT was put together by Jews in the 5th Century BCE, and the NT by Christians in the 4th Century CE. I don't see how it can be said that these books don't promote a certain religion when they were created by that religion. There were plenty of other texts that were deliberately left out of both books because they didn't agree with the exact sort of religion and view of god(s) or son of god (in Christianity's case) that was being promoted as orthodoxy at the time.
Plus if 'God's people are in all religions' why does Yahweh constantly demand the destruction of altars, statues and temples to any other deity / religion in the OT, along with the murder of anyone following those gods / religions? And why did the early Christian emperors outlaw all other religions under the penalty of death in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 11:55:26 PM
The OT is the time of God's people when they were "Christian infants" if you will. So there is a lot of do's and don'ts there and much punishment for not following God's law. The NT is the "grown up" Christian that while the law still stands and whatever consequences in not following that law remains, the literal punishment is not enforced. (the easiest way I know to put it without getting into sounding preachy.)
Again, a very Christian interpretation, which is fair enough from a Christian ;) but I find it a little insulting to Jews. I don't think they'd consider themselves or their forebears to be "Christian infants"! But I understand your Christian interpretation of scripture, even if I also think it's utter poppycock.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
This is contradictory, to assert "through Christ" you are asserting Christianity, it is as simple as that.
Of course I assert Christianity...I am Christian. The bible states it is through Christ... Which part is contradictory?
The part that "through Christ" does not automatically mean Xtianity. Unless "through Christ" means Buddhism, or Shintoism, or animism, or not-Xtianity.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 10:40:44 PM
My neighbour's cat know more than "He". The bar isn't set very high here.
I love that, can I quote it in my tag line?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:21:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 12:24:50 AMChristian interpretation of scripture, even if I also think it's utter poppycock.
I hope you were wearing a monocle when you used the phrase "utter poppycock," it's de rigueur I'm sure.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 06, 2012, 04:52:14 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 12:24:50 AMChristian interpretation of scripture, even if I also think it's utter poppycock.
I hope you were wearing a monocle when you used the phrase "utter poppycock," it's de rigueur I'm sure.
I was dressed something like this
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg268.imageshack.us%2Fimg268%2F623%2Fbaronl.jpg&hash=2911bcc92f86d344efb003ea8204648a24646fb8) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/baronl.jpg/)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 06, 2012, 04:52:14 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 12:24:50 AMChristian interpretation of scripture, even if I also think it's utter poppycock.
I hope you were wearing a monocle when you used the phrase "utter poppycock," it's de rigueur I'm sure.
I was dressed something like this
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg268.imageshack.us%2Fimg268%2F623%2Fbaronl.jpg&hash=2911bcc92f86d344efb003ea8204648a24646fb8) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/baronl.jpg/)
I was just going to suggest that and I got a funny message.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.wg.uproxx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Flancelot-link.jpg&hash=501fae541b05367756caa0c7d902bdc33e58644b)
great minds and all that. I think it may be time to change my avatar, particularly as I do love Lancelot Link
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 06, 2012, 03:50:23 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 05, 2012, 10:21:18 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
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...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:57:45 PM
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.
Quote from: fester30 on March 06, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 12:22:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 06:32:24 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:41:15 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 06:32:24 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 05:08:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 07:14:05 PMIt 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 07:43:52 PM
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!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:49:29 PM
technically the Jews aren't a race, they're a religion.
From Wiki
Quote
The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group
Quote
The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:49:29 PM
technically the Jews aren't a race, they're a religion.
From Wiki
Quote
The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group
Quote
The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation
maybe it just depends where you look on the internet or what you're looking for or how you interpret the word 'Jew' or the word 'race'. Many Jews are of European origin, some from eastern Europe, some from the western Mediterranean, whereas others are from the Middle East, to say they're the same race is like saying Catholics or Muslims are the same race. This is from about.com
QuoteJudaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are both "Jewish." However, whereas Ashkenazi Jews often hail from Europe, Sephardic Jews often hail from the Middle East. People of many different races have become Jewish over the centuries.
I guess maybe you interpret the words 'Jew' and 'race' differently to me.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 11:49:31 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 06, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
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.
I agree with inconsistencies of Jesus' crucifixion, it's one of the many reasons why I suspect it's mythology and not history. I don't see why the Romans would have got involved in a Jewish blasphemy trial, and it's highly unlikely Jesus would have been tried by the Jews at the Passover anyway.
You do also seem to be wanting to have things both ways here though. You've suggested that fourth century Romans may have edited the gospels to try blame the Jews for Jesus' death, yet somehow they left in the bit where they were actually the ones who crucified Jesus. That was a poor bit of editing by Constantine and his cronies, they could have just rewritten the gospels with the Jews killing Jesus without Roman involvement.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 06, 2012, 03:57:45 PM
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 knowledge which is generally acknowledged by atheists to be incomplete and possibly wrong and in any case nothing more than our best guess. A strange sort of pride.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 07, 2012, 12:40:17 AM
You do also seem to be wanting to have things both ways here though. You've suggested that fourth century Romans may have edited the gospels to try blame the Jews for Jesus' death, yet somehow they left in the bit where they were actually the ones who crucified Jesus. That was a poor bit of editing by Constantine and his cronies, they could have just rewritten the gospels with the Jews killing Jesus without Roman involvement.
I don't know, I'm obviously just speculating in order to offer an alternative that is semi plausible.
Possibly the Romans liked the idea that they were in control of society, that they were judge, jury and executioner.
But saw dangers in being linked as the reason why the Jesus bible hero was martyred.
Maybe they wanted to show the people that the Romans were working with the people rather than against them. That they could join forces with the Jews and exact a common justice, but of course showing that the Romans were ultimately in the power seat.
Maybe they wanted to keep changes to the bible stories to a minimum and the result is just enough change required to suit the purpose.
I think there are many plausible possibilities, we will never know because the real truth was not documented and hence has been lost.
But what we can reasonably surmise is that the depiction in the bible is lacking much credibility.
Quote from: Stevil on March 07, 2012, 05:50:56 AM
I don't know, I'm obviously just speculating in order to offer an alternative that is semi plausible.
Possibly the Romans liked the idea that they were in control of society, that they were judge, jury and executioner.
But saw dangers in being linked as the reason why the Jesus bible hero was martyred.
Maybe they wanted to show the people that the Romans were working with the people rather than against them. That they could join forces with the Jews and exact a common justice, but of course showing that the Romans were ultimately in the power seat.
Maybe they wanted to keep changes to the bible stories to a minimum and the result is just enough change required to suit the purpose.
I think there are many plausible possibilities, we will never know because the real truth was not documented and hence has been lost.
But what we can reasonably surmise is that the depiction in the bible is lacking much credibility.
That's very true, but the Jews were blamed for killing Jesus by Christians centuries before Constantine or the adoption of Christianity as the Roman state religion. I've just been reading some Justin Martyr (103–165), one of the earliest known Christian writers. He wholeheartedly blames the Jews for killing Jesus, if you want to read any of his writings (it's painfully dull stuff) they're here;
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
In his first apology he writes,
'but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him.' (LXIII)
and in his Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew) he writes
'For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire...Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him.' (XVI)
'For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man' (XVII)
'But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ' (XCIII)
'But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you hate the Righteous One, and slew Him.' (CXXXVI)
Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.
Quote from: Stevil on March 06, 2012, 07:43:52 PM
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?
Yes, even from a believer's stanpoint, there is no reason to blame anyone. Even Jesus is reported to have said from the cross "forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing." Since Jesus forgave those responsible for his own death, there's no reason for us to condemn them.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 07, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.
OK, well it wasn't Constantine then.
Thanks for pulling that up.
Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?
I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.
Quote from: Stevil on March 07, 2012, 06:18:40 PM
Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?
I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.
Yes, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the apostles and most all of the original several thousand Christians were all Jews. The Bible doesn't really blame the whole of Jewry for the death of Jesus. Paul criticizes the Judeans who were actually involved, but not all Jews. The game of blame-the-Jews was mainly started later.
Quote from: Stevil on March 07, 2012, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 07, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.
OK, well it wasn't Constantine then.
Thanks for pulling that up.
Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?
I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.
Me neither. But yeah, if they were historical people they would have been Jews. I guess people like Justin were writing in the second century, and from their early Christian standpoint they believed that the son of Yahweh/their god had come to Earth, taught his ministry in Judaea / Jerusalem and been put to death, but Yahweh's chosen people the Jews hadn't even recognised the son of their own god. Even worse they rejected him and may even have put him to death. I think that really pissed off the early Christians.