who really killed Jesus? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

billl

03-24-2012, 10:40 PM

Firstly, I agree with Bienvenu.

As for myself, if one doesn’t believe the written account, then who among us will give the more factual one?

But more on my mind is this: Cacian, yet again we meet. And again I will remind you of your words: You have denounced God’s existence. Therefore, how can you inquire of Jesus’ death if you don’t believe in his father? Your question is asinine.

Wouldn’t you be better off asking questions about the faiths of the atheists rather than the believers of Christ and God?

What’s tomorrow’s question going to be? Who really raised Jesus from the dead?

Really?

To be fair, a person doesn't have to believe in God in order to believe that Jesus lived and was killed. It's maybe strange to ask, or one might suspect the motivations behind it (Why ask about Jesus if you're an atheist?); but it isn't an "asinine" thing to do. A person just has to believe Joseph or some other man was the real father.

So, even with non-believers, there might be curiosity about positions that believers take on it. Even without believing, and without really caring about the story, I think there could be something useful gained in hearing believers' ideas on it, simply because it sometimes comes up in certain social and political contexts.

For example, just off the top of my head: Is some person or institution "X" among believers actually anti-Semetic maybe, and does this "Who killed Jesus" have something to do with it, either as inspiration for the Anti-Semiticism, or as something believed on account of the Anti-Semetic disposition?; What's the motivation behind this or that Christian group supporting Israel to this or that degree, might some of them quietly think the Jewish people inferior, or responsible for killing God's son, etc.? Might some Christians really think there's something wrong about "The Jews" and that "they" were to some degree or another to blame or something? Are people walking around thinking like that?

I like Charles Darnay's answer. Without being even close to an expert on the subject, I think this seems like a sensible way to sort it out. Pinning it exclusively on Pilate might be right, on the other hand. In any case, it just seems like primitive religion v. religion fervor for people to be simply blaming "Jews" (as if en masse) for the killing.

Anyhow, I mean, I don't know, it could be the OP just wants to troll, but not necessarily.

Bad Grass

03-24-2012, 10:46 PM

Hey, Charles.

My comment wasn’t aimed at you. But I’m not saying that you were saying that.
To answer the question. I don’t have a problem with interpretations. I value people seeking the word. Is my version, the King James Bible, better or worse than the Quran?

It is not for me to say.

I respect them both. But only one I understand. That is for me and a fellow believer to discuss.

Don’t get me wrong. I have issues with some of the imagery of my own Bible. I post about those things.

But the nit-picking from Atheists about Christianity or other religions is absurd.

Charles Darnay

03-24-2012, 10:58 PM

This is a literature forum, nit picking is what we do.

Bad Grass

03-24-2012, 11:00 PM

Well, I never! Haha.

Rores28

03-25-2012, 12:02 AM

Hey, Charles.

To answer the question. I don’t have a problem with interpretations.

This is manifestly false. If I were to interpret the old testament as telling me to indiscriminately beat my wife for any marital infraction, you would have no problem with this? If I were to interpret the old testament as saying that I should set fire to the house of any blasphemers and acted on this belief you would have no problem with that? Of course you have a problem with interpretation. What you mean to say is that you don't have a problem with an interpretation that is reasonably close to your own or which doesn't offend your inherent moral sensibilities.

But the nit-picking from Atheists about Christianity or other religions is absurd.

When large swathes of the population think that books written hundreds of years ago are divinely inspired and should serve as a guide for one's life (e.g. behavior) then nit-picking is decidedly not absurd. Other areas of inquiry are subject to quite a high degree of nit-pickery and for good reason, because we recognize that the conclusions of those fields matter and have practical and serious implications for our lives.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 01:31 AM

Even the Christian bible admits that the Romans killed Jesus. The problem with the biblical account is that it implicated the Jews in Jesus' death and that part of the story doesn't make sense to me. Why would the Jews want one of their own to be crucified even if they did not like what he said? Did they treat other members of their community in the same way? I don't think so.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? I mean come on man, it is in the very bible. Because he made himself out to be God and that in Jewish law was punishable by death. It's that simple!

And why does it have to make sense? Does finding the truth always have to make sense to you?

I just don't understand why people can't get this. And I say this with all due respect.

I like Charles Darnay's answer. Without being even close to an expert on the subject, I think this seems like a sensible way to sort it out. Pinning it exclusively on Pilate might be right, on the other hand. In any case, it just seems like primitive religion v. religion fervor for people to be simply blaming "Jews" (as if en masse) for the killing.

Hum, because Pilate wanted to wash his hands of the whole ordeal and the Jews insisted he be put to death. So because of them, the Jews, Pilate washed his hands of the whole ordeal. He (Pilate) wanted to keep peace with the Jews because he was a governor of them. Come on man, read the text, it's part of the story! And that's not being anti-Semitic, that's telling the truth! Grip the story!

There is always reason to doubt: as Descartes demonstrates, doubting is the only way to know.

Beyond that....it's more about doubting Biblical interpretations - like that of John of Chrysostom - one of the biggest pieces of **** in history, in my opinion.

Were there Jews responsible for killing Jesus? Yeah, most likely, in the same way Americans are responsible for the assassination of Martin Luther King (or Lincoln, or JFK....) If Jesus lived and died as the Bible said, then his death was due to a small(ish) group of people who thought he was too dangerous....not some Jewish conspiracy orchestrated by Satan.

Waaa, I'm speechless!

Yes the Jews were responsible for killing Christ, read the bible! Gee Wiz, I just don't get it. This small powerful band of Jews wanted Jesus Christ dead because they did not believe he was God. Jesus clearly declared himself God. The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because that was their punishment for blasphemy against God. It was one of the crimes punishable by death, i.e. making oneself God. Which was blasphemous among the Jews at that time. I can bring up dozens of versus backing me up. That is if you even believe the bible's account, which I'm not sure of.

What is so hard to figure out? And what does Satan have to do with this? Gee

BienvenuJDC

03-25-2012, 02:03 AM

billl

03-25-2012, 02:35 AM

Hum, because Pilate wanted to wash his hands of the whole ordeal and the Jews insisted he be put to death. So because of them, the Jews, Pilate washed his hands of the whole ordeal. He (Pilate) wanted to keep peace with the Jews because he was a governor of them. Come on man, read the text, it's part of the story! And that's not being anti-Semitic, that's telling the truth! Grip the story!

I haven't read the story (actually I may have once, not completely sure), but, in my case, there's half-remembered bits from stuff on TV, movies, internet articles/discussion, etc. And the stuff I remembered matched pretty much what you're saying--which, I think, doesn't really conflict with Darnay's posted idea at all... Unless you want to counter Darnay with some version of what "the Jews" might mean in your statement, some sense of responsibility among "the Jews" that would go significantly beyond what he suggested. But, yeah, my understanding--of the Bible's version--matches what you say. But are you convinced the Bible is accurate?

Anyhow, Bad Grass had another angle, and I'm not going to suddenly read over the story in the Bible in an attempt to analyze anyone's particular interpretation, and goodness knows if there's some ancient Roman records I should hunt down, etc., so whatever, it doesn't matter whether I'm convinced by his idea or not, that wasn't the point of my post. It's just that someone had said it was asinine to wonder about this if one didn't believe in the Christian God, and I thought that was rather off-target.

Beyond that, I was prepared to read whatever people might have to say, and see how others responded. They can sort out which part of the Bible or other documents make the case for this or that, according to which version of whatever book, and whether or not there was an agenda behind the story. Moving forward, I was hoping for (since there seems to be some disagreement) stuff like: If it was "The Jews", then what does that mean (in the light of Darnay's post)? If people think it was mostly Pilate being a domineering bad guy, can they point to anything to indicate this? And can anyone point to anything in sources beyond the Gospels that proves Pilate was just washing his hands of the matter?

cacian

03-25-2012, 05:15 AM

Is there a reason to doubt the documented Biblical account?

yes where there is doubt there is a question.
I don't have to believe the bible because for all I know it could be a complete make up to cover something else.
I cannot possibly believe something I have not actually witnessed or seen for myself. Thus is my nature to question the validity of what a book such as the bible is saying.

Even the Christian bible admits that the Romans killed Jesus. The problem with the biblical account is that it implicated the Jews in Jesus' death and that part of the story doesn't make sense to me. Why would the Jews want one of their own to be crucified even if they did not like what he said? Did they treat other members of their community in the same way? I don't think so.

Jesus became visible to the Romans when he entered Jerusalem in a public display on what is called "palm Sunday". The next week he was crucified by the Romans. Jesus became a target for the Romans on palm Sunday and Pilate was a butcher eager to find another example to show his power by terrorizing the populace.

So why would the Christians make up Jewish involvement with the crucifixion? I think that has to do with Christianity having moved away from a Jewish base to a gentile base and the Romans at the time were defeating the Jews. The Christians did not want to be on the losing side.
one reason to make it up is to implicate the Jews yet again.
The Jews persecussion throughout time is iconic enough to make me think what if it is/was yet another plot to ensure the Jews are persecutted throughout time and killing Jesus is one that does not go away.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 08:13 AM

yes where there is doubt there is a question.
I don't have to believe the bible because for all I know it could be a complete make up to cover something else.
I cannot possibly believe something I have not actually witnessed or seen for myself. Thus is my nature to question the validity of what a book such as the bible is saying.

I suppose you can question anything that one cannot see, feel or hear if one goes by relating truth to ones own senses. However, that misses the point. If truth comes by seeing then what is the point of the bible? Every one on earth then would have seen God and they'd be crazy not to believe in him. But you see, the story of the bible is the fall of man and how God came down to rescue him. And the way you get rescued is by belief, not intellect. Actually God opens one up to belief, so in a way, the non believers have closed themselves up to God. They have rejected him and hence pay a price, called justice. If it was up to intellect then the whole point of the bible would be moot.

People don't understand the bible because they don't want to. Fact is, the bible was written by over 40 authors or prophets, what have you, in a span of over 1500 years. To think they all had it in for the Jews (many of whom were Jews) is preposterous. Fact is, the bible is what it is, a story of God and his redemption for man. It is as believable as you believe. Either you believe it, or you don't. I would suggest that 95% of the earth don't believe. And isn't that the point of Jesus message? Broad is the road to destruction and narrow the gate to heaven. He certainly knew what he was saying. But then again He's God.

The Bible was actually written to be rejected by the intellect, hence the problem many people on here have with it. They act like it's just some fairy tale clown story written by some clowns.

I say this with all respect cacian because you're one of the people I admire on this site. Because you actually took, and take the time to respond to the poets (me included) who post. :)

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 08:25 AM

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 08:31 AM

I haven't read the story (actually I may have once, not completely sure), but, in my case, there's half-remembered bits from stuff on TV, movies, internet articles/discussion, etc. And the stuff I remembered matched pretty much what you're saying--which, I think, doesn't really conflict with Darnay's posted idea at all... Unless you want to counter Darnay with some version of what "the Jews" might mean in your statement, some sense of responsibility among "the Jews" that would go significantly beyond what he suggested. But, yeah, my understanding--of the Bible's version--matches what you say. But are you convinced the Bible is accurate?

Beyond that, I was prepared to read whatever people might have to say, and see how others responded. They can sort out which part of the Bible or other documents make the case for this or that, according to which version of whatever book, and whether or not there was an agenda behind the story. Moving forward, I was hoping for (since there seems to be some disagreement) stuff like: If it was "The Jews", then what does that mean (in the light of Darnay's post)? If people think it was mostly Pilate being a domineering bad guy, can they point to anything to indicate this? And can anyone point to anything in sources beyond the Gospels that proves Pilate was just washing his hands of the matter?

Waaa? Pilate may have been a bad guy but what does that have to do with the fact that a band of powerful Jews seeked to Kill Jesus? They got Pilate to do their dirty work. That's the facts man, accept it or not.

This revisionism of history is astounding. The Jews didn't like Christ because they thought he was coming to rescue them from the romans. You see, the Jews thought they had it in with God. But there was one little problem. God knew the Jews loved themselves more than God. Hence, to make them jealous, he spread the gospel to the gentiles.

This is the story of the Gospel, foretold in the old Testament too. God knew that the Jews would reject him and alas, they did.

This is fact man and I don't care what any person, Jew, gentile, says. If a person wants to make up stories about Christianity then let them do it among themselves, with other non-believers, whatever. It's like me telling the Jews why do you believe in one God? When the bible clearly states there is a trinity (new and old Testament). I'm not getting into all that crap though cause I realize there are many who like to start arguments for argument sake.

I am always astounded at the irrelevant retorts and half-clever rebuttals that constitute the modern atheist discourse. That it could ever be considered reasonable to confuse such an innocuous assertion as that one has no objection to the practice of interpreting scripture with another that all interpretations are valid (and, at which point, the person responding conjures up the more salacious aspects of the Pentateuch, an objection that seems to be the first and last resort among so-called New Atheists) testifies to how ridiculous this conversation is. Of course, I don't know what I expected from a post asking the Holmeslike question "who really killed Jesus?" followed by about as sophisticated an inquiry as that occurring in the average History Channel "documentary".

And regarding all this talk about the Jews.... First, Jesus was a Jew. Second, the disciples were mostly Jews. The Gospels have never been a condemnation of the Jews. It just so happens that the story takes place within a distinctly Jewish society, and what the Gospels condemn is society, itself. The point was never that the Jews murdered Jesus, but that worldly society repays kindness and honesty with murder. The fact is that Jews have been in the past, are now and will always be a part of society, and the modern notion that Jews are fundamentally good people is as idiotic as the medieval one that they are fundamentally bad. The fact is Jews are simply people, which is to say that they are, like the rest of us, fairly base creatures driven by their own desires and who, consequently, confuse propriety with morality. The Gospels do not indict the Jews, but rather us all.

Right on Brother:thumbs_up

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 09:47 AM

YesNo

03-25-2012, 10:02 AM

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? I mean come on man, it is in the very bible. Because he made himself out to be God and that in Jewish law was punishable by death. It's that simple!

And why does it have to make sense? Does finding the truth always have to make sense to you?

I just don't understand why people can't get this. And I say this with all due respect.
The Jews could have killed Jesus themselves. They did not have to set him up for crucifixion by the Romans who were an occupying force. The Romans were their enemies. And if they didn't want to do the dirty work themselves, why didn't they ask the occupying forces to behead him as was done to John the Baptist? Why go to all the trouble of a crucifixion? Why request such an extreme torture that was used by the Romans, their enemies, to terrorize them?

For the Jews to have asked Pilate to crucify Jesus makes as much sense as the if Palestinians today would ask the Israelis to execute one of their own by stripping him completely naked--no loin cloth, hanging him with nails in his hands and feet so they could watch him defecate and urinate attracting flies to torment him while he slowly dies.

The literal story makes no sense and the antisemitic consequences of that story through the past 2000 years beg one to ask what really happened.

Pilate supposedly crucified two others with Jesus. Does this make Pilate look like some kind of humanitarian with a dainty sense of ethics?

cacian

03-25-2012, 10:03 AM

I suppose you can question anything that one cannot see, feel or hear if one goes by relating truth to ones own senses. However, that misses the point. If truth comes by seeing then what is the point of the bible? Every one on earth then would have seen God and they'd be crazy not to believe in him. But you see, the story of the bible is the fall of man and how God came down to rescue him. And the way you get rescued is by belief, not intellect. Actually God opens one up to belief, so in a way, the non believers have closed themselves up to God. They have rejected him and hence pay a price, called justice. If it was up to intellect then the whole point of the bible would be moot.

People don't understand the bible because they don't want to. Fact is, the bible was written by over 40 authors or prophets, what have you, in a span of over 1500 years. To think they all had it in for the Jews (many of whom were Jews) is preposterous. Fact is, the bible is what it is, a story of God and his redemption for man. It is as believable as you believe. Either you believe it, or you don't. I would suggest that 95% of the earth don't believe. And isn't that the point of Jesus message? Broad is the road to destruction and narrow the gate to heaven. He certainly knew what he was saying. But then again He's God.

The Bible was actually written to be rejected by the intellect, hence the problem many people on here have with it. They act like it's just some fairy tale clown story written by some clowns.

I say this with all respect cacian because you're one of the people I admire on this site. Because you actually took, and take the time to respond to the poets (me included) who post. :)

Thank you ShadowsCool and I hear what you are saying however the bible after all a book composed for various reasons.
One might say it is they are the words of God and that is fine and another might well say well actually maybe it put together not because of God or Jesus but because of other agendas on might know about.
I have doubts in the bible as much as I have doubts in Hollywood interpretations of the movies they make.

I am not however doubting what God is nor have I doubts in my mind that there is a higher being. That is totally separate.
My issue here is that I find it difficult that Godwound want some writers to compose his words in this way.
I have no doubt that Jesus existed but after that I doubt every single words and line found in the bible because
A) I do not have proof that those who wrote it are what they say they are
B) I don't believe that Jesus cruicifed or killed by the Jews
c) I believe that Jesus was killed yes but not in the way it has been described to us in the bible.
As far as I am concerned is a work of fiction made and arranged by some individuals because of reasons of their own.
By saying this I am not having a go or misdemeaning the faith of all christians on the contrary.
What I am suggesting is that one needs to be more curious and question everything that is given to one because one cannot for sure be entirely sure of what anybody says or writes.
Blind faith is ok but intelligent faith is more and long lasting.
So all in all the bible is a book and is to be critiqued in the same way that any book is and does.

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 10:03 AM

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 10:07 AM

Call this a "irrelevant retort and half-clever rebuttal" all you like, but it seems like railing at how people's responses are akin to the history channel "documentaries" and then closing with (to paraphrase) "Jews are people too" is a bit of shooting yourself in the foot (Christians have feet, right?)

Well sir, people are idiotic. Stuntpickle was just pointing that out. There are people on here, probably you, who take issue with anyone who believe in the Bible. They make up all kinds of idiotic arguments to try and confuse the issue. Then come off all high-minded like, "see got ya"! Fact is, they shot themselves in the foot and they don't even realize it.

Either Jesus was God or he was not. Either the Bible is true or it's fairytales. But to quote the Bible and then make the stories bend to your own sense of what happened is preposterous. And that's what many do on here. For instance, a Muslim calling Jesus a prophet? Show me where the bible makes such a claim? It doesn't. The bible clearly states he is God. To bend and stretch the truth is outrageous and woefully ignorant.

Thank you ShadowsCool and I hear what you are saying however the bible after all a book composed for various reasons.
One might say it is they are the words of God and that is fine and another might well say well actually maybe it put together not because of God or Jesus but because of other agendas on might know about.
I have doubts in the bible as much as I have doubts in Hollywood interpretations of the movies they make.

I am not however doubting what God is nor have I doubts in my mind that there is a higher being. That is totally separate.
My issue here is that I find it difficult that Godwound want some writers to compose his words in this way.
I have no doubt that Jesus existed but after that I doubt every single words and line found in the bible because
A) I do not have proof that those who wrote it are what they say they are
B) I don't believe that Jesus cruicifed or killed by the Jews
c) I believe that Jesus was killed yes but not in the way it has been described to us in the bible.
As far as I am concerned is a work of fiction made and arranged by some individuals because of reasons of their own.
By saying this I am not having a go or misdemeaning the faith of all christians onthe contrary.
What I am suggesting is that one needs to be more curious and question everything that is given to us because one cannot for sure be entirely sure of what anybody says or write.
Blind faith is ok but intelligent faith is more and long lasting.
So all in all the bible is a book and is to be critiqued in the same way that any book is and does.

Cacian, bottom line is you don't believe. And that's okay really. That's a choice, you as an intelligent human being is allowed to make. However, I do believe and have millions of reasons why. One can't just say they believe Jesus existed but on the other hand say he didn't die the way he did. That's preposterous. Either you get the story right or you move on.

Like I said, cacian, I pick no issue with you. You're a curious individual and I think that's fine. I have issues with people who purposely try to stir the pot by bending the facts. They know who they are and are dishonest in every sense of the word.

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 10:18 AM

I'd expect nothing less from you. If you think responding that the gospels do not, in fact, disparage the Jews as a people in a thread in which someone has suggested that Jesus' death involved a cover up so as to implicate the Jews and ensure their ongoing persecution is somehow "irrelevant", then perhaps you need to look the word up. And that you wrongly understand the emphasis of the statement, to the extent that you think my point is roughly equivalent to "Christians have feet", perfectly demonstrates my point. Thanks for the help.

Well sir, people are idiotic. Stuntpickle was just pointing that out. There are people on here, probably you, who take issue with anyone who believe in the Bible. They make up all kinds of idiotic arguments to try and confuse the issue. Then come off all high-minded like, "see got ya"! Fact is, they shot themselves in the foot and they don't even realize it.

Either Jesus was God or he was not. Either the Bible is true or it's fairytales. But to quote the Bible and then make the stories bend to your own sense of what happened is preposterous. And that's what many do on here. For instance, a Muslim calling Jesus a prophet? Show me where the bible makes such a claim? It doesn't. The bible clearly states he is God. To bend and stretch the truth is outrageous and woefully ignorant.

In fact, my issue was, as my issue is with many Christians I encounter, is that Christians feel the need to look at Jews in the light of Christians, and that my existence (as a Jew) is somehow lessened unless Christians acknowledge that I am just like them.

I'm saying away from the "debate about the interpreation of the Gospels" issue, I have said my peace on that - but I find peoples' self-righteousness too overbearing to ignore.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 10:31 AM

In fact, my issue was, as my issue is with many Christians I encounter, is that Christians feel the need to look at Jews in the light of Christians, and that my existence (as a Jew) is somehow lessened unless Christians acknowledge that I am just like them.

I'm saying away from the "debate about the interpreation of the Gospels" issue, I have said my peace on that - but I find peoples' self-righteousness too overbearing to ignore.

That is fine Charles. Fine. Who is being 'self-righteous'? I'm just pointing out FACTS. To call a Christian self-righteous is ignorant of the truth. Christians are not self-righteous, it's actually the people who point fingers at them. The fact is, the jews, a certain sect at least, wanted to kill Jesus. This has nothing to do with modern Jews. I'm not getting into any arguments over semantics. You have a right to your view and I mine. Let peace prevail.

And how do you know how Christians look at Jews? That's your sense of feeling. That's akin to a black person thinking all white people hate them. That's preposterous. That's you reading into tariff cards or believing certain feelings you have are right.

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 10:33 AM

In fact, my issue was, as my issue is with many Christians I encounter, is that Christians feel the need to look at Jews in the light of Christians, and that my existence (as a Jew) is somehow lessened unless Christians acknowledge that I am just like them.

I'm saying away from the "debate about the interpreation of the Gospels" issue, I have said my peace on that - but I find peoples' self-righteousness too overbearing to ignore.

This is such BS. You don't get to assume anyone's motivations, especially when your assumptions are so outlandish, and the motivations fairly obvious. My initial comments weren't about you or even Jews in general, but rather about someone else trying to reinterpret the Gospels based on a conspiracy theory in which some cabal dreams up the story of Jesus' death to persecute Jews.

That you have understood my initial comments as an assault on your own self-worth, moreover, one that is a bizarre passive-aggressive assault disguised as a self-righteous defense, could only mean that you have no idea what is being discussed--or, like shadow says, that you are simply trying to complicate the conversation and exhaust those engaged in it with red herrings.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 11:15 AM

And how do you know how Christians look at Jews?

Probably because they write offensive crap like this:

The Jews didn't like Christ because they thought he was coming to rescue them from the romans. You see, the Jews thought they had it in with God. But there was one little problem. God knew the Jews loved themselves more than God. Hence, to make them jealous, he spread the gospel to the gentiles.

This is the story of the Gospel, foretold in the old Testament too. God knew that the Jews would reject him and alas, they did.

This is fact man and I don't care what any person, Jew, gentile, says. If a person wants to make up stories about Christianity then let them do it among themselves, with other non-believers, whatever. It's like me telling the Jews why do you believe in one God? When the bible clearly states there is a trinity (new and old Testament). I'm not getting into all that crap though cause I realize there are many who like to start arguments for argument sake.

I think that's a pretty straight-forward statement that reveals exactly what you think of Jews. So what are you yelling at Charles Darnay for?

Apart from crucifixtion and the Jews being the first to blamed for killing Jesus, who else could be responsible for killing Jesus?
After all we are only going with what the Bible says but what if somebody else had had a hand on it and everything we have been told about the death of Jesus was just a masquarade?
After all there is no proof Jesus was killed because of the Jews because it is pure speculations by those who wrote the Bible and I for one do not have to believe the Romans crucified Jesus nor that the Jews were responsible for Jesus's death.

The minute I read the title I knew exactly what this thread was going to turn into.

The conspiracy theory approach is downright whacky. You seem to be confusing the factual details of a story and denying the historicity of a story. You don't read a fictional story in which a character says they travelled in a red van and then start questioning whether it was really a red van or if they're lying and actually the character really travelled in a blue van when there is nothing in the text to indicate that.

The Gospel clearly portrays Pilate washing his hands of the crime and the Jewish leaders and a mob (it's hard to imagine every single Jew was present) calling for his death. To call this pure speculation makes no sense. Since first and foremost it is a story and we have no reason to doubt the details of a story.

However, it is valid to question the historicity of the story. Did it really happen in actual history? Did it really happen that exact way? But this then requires evidence for why we should assume it happened differently or why it should be assumed the texts are or aren't historically accurate. Many scholars, for example, see the depiction of Pilate as innocent and the Jews as culpable as a rhetorical ploy designed to curry favor with the Roman overlords and potential gentile converts, while denigrating a rival version of the religion (in the sense that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism).

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 11:29 AM

And how do you know how Christians look at Jews? That's your sense of feeling. That's akin to a black person thinking all white people hate them. That's preposterous. That's you reading into tariff cards or believing certain feelings you have are right.

I assure you, I fully support free trade amongst us :)

That aside:

"how do you know how Christians look at Jews?" - they speak very openly about it (which in of itself is not a bad thing).

"That's akin to a black person thinking all white people hate them....." - no, that's akin to black people thinking that the have to "act white" to fit in.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 11:32 AM

Probably because they write offensive crap like this:

I think that's a pretty straight-forward statement that reveals exactly what you think of Jews. So what are you yelling at Charles Darnay for?

What's your beef with me? Or is it me? Or the facts? If you take issue with me then prove your point. Show me how I'm wrong. I'm waiting for your response. I said nothing about my views of the Jews. In fact I stated so earlier. Did the Jews not believe that their messiah was coming to rescue them from bondage? That's the whole story of the old testament, at least as understood by the Jews of that time. When Jesus showed up they were thoroughly disappointed. And I said it was a small sect of Jews, not all Jews. In fact many Jews were converted, no?

Are you someone who is throwing darts in the wind? If you're going to start name calling me, be prepared.

And as far as Charles is concerned, I got no beef with him. In fact, I told him let's have peace and he agreed. So there! Stick it in your pipe!

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 12:08 PM

"how do you know how Christians look at Jews?" - they speak very openly about it (which in of itself is not a bad thing).

Exactly, and whether they say that the Jews rejected the messiah or that the Jews are simply people like the rest of us, the result is the same: you're dissatisfied. Has it ever occurred to you that you are impossible to please and that your implication that, despite protestations to the contrary, every Christian is subtly antisemitic might just be exactly what you're wrongly accusing the Christians of doing? That's called hypocrisy; Jesus talked a lot about it. And, for the record, he didn't consider it a characteristic exclusive to Jews.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 12:10 PM

What's your beef with me? Or is it me? Or the facts? If you take issue with me then prove your point. Show me how I'm wrong. I'm waiting for your response. I said nothing about my views of the Jews. In fact I stated so earlier. Did the Jews not believe that their messiah was coming to rescue them from bondage? That's the whole story of the old testament, at least as understood by the Jews of that time. When Jesus showed up they were thoroughly disappointed. And I said it was a small sect of Jews, not all Jews. In fact many Jews were converted, no?

Are you someone who is throwing darts in the wind? If you're going to start name calling me, be prepared.

And as far as Charles is concerned, I got no beef with him. In fact, I told him let's have peace and he agreed. So there! Stick it in your pipe!

I have no beef with you. I just found it ironic that you were questioning Charles's ability to know how Christian's view him as a Jew when you yourself revealed so much of how you viewed Jews with your own words in a previous post.

The Jews didn't like Christ because they thought he was coming to rescue them from the romans. You see, the Jews thought they had it in with God. But there was one little problem. God knew the Jews loved themselves more than God. Hence, to make them jealous, he spread the gospel to the gentiles.

This is the story of the Gospel, foretold in the old Testament too. God knew that the Jews would reject him and alas, they did.

This is fact man and I don't care what any person, Jew, gentile, says. If a person wants to make up stories about Christianity then let them do it among themselves, with other non-believers, whatever. It's like me telling the Jews why do you believe in one God? When the bible clearly states there is a trinity (new and old Testament). I'm not getting into all that crap though cause I realize there are many who like to start arguments for argument sake.

So based on those lines I would conclude as a Christian you think the Jews have rejected God, love themselves more than they love God, don't accept the gospel because it was God's plan to make them jealous of extending his blessing onto gentiles for rejecting him, no longer have the favor of God, and can't see that the Old Testament includes tons of references to the trinity, thus vindicating all these beliefs.

Would you say that is an accurate summation of your views?

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 12:28 PM

I have no beef with you. I just found it ironic that you were questioning Charles's ability to know how Christian's view him as a Jew when you yourself revealed so much of how you viewed Jews with your own words in a previous post.

So based on those lines I would conclude as a Christian you think the Jews have rejected God, love themselves more than they love God, don't accept the gospel because it was God's plan to make them jealous of extending his blessing onto gentiles for rejecting him, no longer have the favor of God, and can't see that the Old Testament includes tons of references to the trinity, thus vindicating all these beliefs.

No, you got things mixed up there. Do I think the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as God, absolutely! So if that's losing favor with God, so be it!

Did they love themselves more than God? I can't answer that, you tell me. What was that whole scene with Moses coming down the mountain and the golden calf about? One example, no?

Was it God's plan to make the Jews jealous by extending his blessings to the gentiles? Well was it God's plan? or the Jews plan to not accept Jesus Christ? It says that in the Bible.

"Through their (Israel’s) fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:11)
"Be it know unto you (Israel), that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28; cf. 13:46).

Don't believe me! Read the quotes. It also says provoke to jealousy.

As for the triune nature of God. I can provided dozen's if not hundreds of instances where it is implacably stated in the New and Old Testament. Amuse me and I will provide.

I really don't like your tone with me. It's insulting. If this is part of your ammo, spit it on someone else. I assure you, you're out of your league with me. If you want to name call me, do it in private messages. But to put words in my mouth, basically twisting every thing I say, shows your ignorance.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 12:47 PM

No, you got things mixed up there. Do I think the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as God, absolutely! So if that's losing favor with God, so be it!

Did they love themselves more than God? I can't answer that, you tell me. What was that whole scene with Moses coming down the mountain and the golden calf about? One example, no?

Was it God's plan to make the Jews jealous by extending his blessings to the gentiles? Well was it God's plan? or the Jews plan to not accept Jesus Christ? It says that in the Bible.

"Through their (Israel’s) fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:11)
"Be it know unto you (Israel), that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28; cf. 13:46).

Don't believe me! Read the quotes. It also says provoke to jealousy.

As for the triune nature of God. I can provided dozen's if not hundreds of instances where it is implacably stated in the New and Old Testament. Amuse me and I will provide.

I really don't like your tone with me. It's insulting. If this is part of your ammo, spit it on someone else. I assure you, you're out of your league with me. If you want to name call me, do it in private messages. But to put words in my mouth, basically twisting every thing I say, shows your ignorance.

Ah, it's good to see you avoided taking responsibility for your own positions. My point in responding to you was a very simple one: How can Charles or I discern what many Christians think of Jews? I said based on your own words and reading between the lines it's not that hard to figure out; in fact, most of the time it's pretty blatant. I summarized your position based on reading of your own words (or at least what you wrote, I'm willing to concede that perhaps you lack the skill to express yourself coherently). You basically in a roundabout way agreed with the summary I provided of your viewpoint by claiming the Bible says all those things, and, by extension, you agree with the Bible. Am I wrong to assume this last part? Nevertheless, I'm not twisting anything you said.

If you disagree with any of the positions that I summarized as being yours, you're more than free to disagree and say that isn't your position and state outright what your actual position is rather than circumventing the question altogether. You could simply state your positions outright on each of the positions I ascribed to you if there is some confusion. But saying, "No, I got things mixed up" followed by you going from point to point that I supposedly got mixed up and basically agreeing with each one as being accurate not only doesn't rebut me, but is a nonsensical response.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 01:11 PM

Ah, it's good to see you avoided taking responsibility for your own positions. My point in responding to you was a very simple one: How can Charles or I discern what many Christians think of Jews? I said based on your own words and reading between the lines, yes, we can. I summarized your position based on reading your own words. You basically in a roundabout way agreed with the summary of the viewpoint by claiming the Bible says all those things. I'm not twisting anything you said.

If you disagree with any of positions that I summarized as being yours, you're more than free to disagree and say that isn't your position and state outright what your actual position is rather than circumventing the question altogether. You could simply state your positions outright on each the positions I ascribed to you if there is some confusion.

I'm not claiming nothing. Are we not talking about the Bible? The Bible says these things. No? Should I speak s-l-o-w-l-y ? Everything you claim that I claim is clearly written in the Bible. So what's the issue? What's Charles discernment of Christians regarding the Jews have to do with anything? That's Charles point of view. He thinks Christians look down on Jews. I disagree. But that's an argument for another day. As for you, you think I am circumventing the question. Well everything I said I back up, period. I take nothing back. I said the truth. Though you are too narrow minded to comprehend it.

And let's go back to what started it. I said:

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

"And how do you know how Christians look at Jews"?

You said:

"Probably because they write offensive crap like this":

So it begs the question. How does Charles or you have the qualifications, or the balls for that matter, to know what a Christian thinks about regarding Jews? Are you and him mind readers? If so, state it. Otherwise, you both think you know, but you know nothing. Charles, I bet had some "feelings" or "run ins" or inferiority complex issues he dealt with. It's like a racist who thinks every one else is racist when in reality he's a racist. This is not about the Jews, this is about you staring facts straight in the face and being baffled by it. And I'm not calling Charles a racist so don't twist that. Bringing out a point!

Like I said, you're out of your league, so please give it up. Speak for someone else, but don't speak for me. You're just trying to confuse the issue, a clever tactic that won't work.

Do you now want me to take you through the trinity doctrine? I can do it with eaze. Or any other doctrine for that matter. But if you're just looking to throw dirt up and run away, then it's time for the mods to shut this down. Maybe they will.

I said my peace and I will end this unless you insult me some more!

Peace

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 01:28 PM

I'm not claiming nothing. Are we not talking about the Bible? The Bible says these things. No? Should I speak s-l-o-w-l-y ? Everything you claim that I claim is clearly written in the Bible. So what's the issue? What's Charles discernment of Christians regarding the Jews have to do with anything? That's Charles point of view. He thinks Christians look down on Jews. I disagree. But that's an argument for another day. As for you, you think I am circumventing the question. Well everything I said I back up, period. I take nothing back. I said the truth. Though you are too narrow minded to comprehend it.

And let's go back to what started it. I said:

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

"And how do you know how Christians look at Jews"?

You said:

"Probably because they write offensive crap like this":

So it begs the question. How does Charles or you have the qualifications, or the balls for that matter, to know what a Christian thinks about regarding Jews? Are you and him mind readers? If so, state it. Otherwise, you both think you know, but you know nothing. Charles, I bet had some "feelings" or "run ins" or inferiority complex issues he dealt with. It's like a racist who thinks every one else is racist when in reality he's a racist. This is not about the Jews, this is about you staring facts straight in the face and being baffled by it. And I'm not calling Charles a racist so don't twist that. Bringing out a point!

Like I said, you're out of your league, so please give it up. Speak for someone else, but don't speak for me. You're just trying to confuse the issue, a clever tactic that won't work.

Peace

Like I stated a thousand times already, we know what Christians think because they state it outright. Just like you did in your post. Not to mention we live in predominately Christian societies.

Fine, the Christian Bible says all these things. All I'm asking is if you agree with them? YES or NO? Why is this so hard for you to answer such a simple question?

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 01:46 PM

Like I stated a thousand times already, we know what Christians think because they state it outright. Just like you did in your post. Not to mention we live in predominately Christian societies.

Fine, the Christian Bible says all these things. All I'm asking is if you agree with them? YES or NO? Why is this so hard for you to answer such a simple question?

Is this a trick question Drkshadow? A gotcha moment you're about to spring on me? Or just a dumb question? LOL

Do I agree, or disagree with, in your own words, 'The Christian Bible'?
Was that the question? I want to make sure every one can see it. First off, there is no 'Christian Bible', let's get that out of the way. Come on man, are you that off on stuff? There is the New Testament & The Old Testament. I assume, your question to me is:

Do I agree with the whole Bible, the new and old? I thought you knew that. Did I not quote from it. A astonishing Yes!!!

So what's the point of the question. I certainly believe in the Bible, or are you trying to insult my intelligence again? And what in the world does a predominately Christian Society have to do with anything? huh. Look, I can see, I'm arguing with an atheist or someone who just can't face facts. I've had enough and so should you. I'm not amused anymore. Stick to writing poetry, will ya!

WyattGwyon

03-25-2012, 01:55 PM

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 02:04 PM

WyattGwyon

03-25-2012, 02:24 PM

They have theories about everything. Makes for good fiction. Makes for good reading. Sells books. Is always interesting. But I respectfuly disagree with everything you just listed. Just saying. Peace.

I am confused as to how you could disagree with everything I said, since I was only describing—quite accurately, by the way—the plot of a novel you haven't read. What I am suggesting, however, is that Bulgakov may have had a more detailed understanding of the judicial system and the interaction of the relevant power structures involved in the crucifixion story than those who wrote the Gospels 100 years after the fact, and that re-imagining the story in this light might provide some insight to anyone with an open mind. Bulgakov, after all, had access to a more detailed historical and documentary record than the authors of the Gospels did. Bulgakov does not claim to be divinely inspired, but his account is inspired! And it displays great reverence for his subject.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 02:30 PM

Okay, quick primer on the Bible.

Jesus states that He is God!
Make no doubt about that.

He also states the He is the "I AM" of the Bible.
So how can that be you might ask?

Let us go back to the beginning shall we?

Genesis 1.1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Now let us read what John says shall we?

John 1.1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Anything stick out at ya? See any correlation?

Now in the most simplest terms. A certain sect of Jews were offended by the doctrine held by Christ. After much murmuring among themselves, they looked to "get rid of him" i.e. kill him. But Jesus was able to slip out from among them. His time had not come yet. Make no doubt about it. The Jews at the time paid 30 pieces of silver to Judas to find out where He (Jesus) would be on a certain date. When that date arrived: From Matthew 27.1 "Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death". Now who were these chief priests and elders? Any guesses? The rest, we know what happened. Who is implicit on bringing upon the death of Jesus Christ? Was that not the original question posed in this thread?
End of discussion.

Back to enjoying Sunday!

I am confused as to how you could disagree with everything I said, since I was only describing—quite accurately, by the way—the plot of a novel you haven't read.

Semantics. Read what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
They have theories about everything. Makes for good fiction. Makes for good reading. Sells books. Is always interesting. But I respectfuly disagree with everything you just listed. Just saying. Peace.

YesNo

03-25-2012, 02:53 PM

one reason to make it up is to implicate the Jews yet again.
The Jews persecussion throughout time is iconic enough to make me think what if it is/was yet another plot to ensure the Jews are persecutted throughout time and killing Jesus is one that does not go away.
It is an interesting thread you started, cacian.

Since the Romans actually killed Jesus and not the Jews and Rome is, well, the capital of Italy today. I guess it was the Italians who killed Jesus.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 02:57 PM

It is an interesting thread you started, cacian.

Since the Romans actually killed Jesus and not the Jews and Rome is, well, the capital of Italy today. I guess it was the Italians who killed Jesus.

I suppose you can say that YesNo. Bare in mind though, that's like blaming the executioner for the death of a prisoner. When in reality, he was just doing his job, like the romans were doing. :p

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 03:16 PM

Is this a trick question Drkshadow? A gotcha moment you're about to spring on me? Or just a dumb question? LOL

Do I agree, or disagree with, in your own words, 'The Christian Bible'?
Was that the question? I want to make sure every one can see it. First off, there is no 'Christian Bible', let's get that out of the way. Come on man, are you that off on stuff? There is the New Testament & The Old Testament. I assume, your question to me is:

Do I agree with the whole Bible, the new and old? I thought you knew that. Did I not quote from it. A astonishing Yes!!!

So what's the point of the question. I certainly believe in the Bible, or are you trying to insult my intelligence again? And what in the world does a predominately Christian Society have to do with anything? huh. Look, I can see, I'm arguing with an atheist or someone who just can't face facts. I've had enough and so should you. I'm not amused anymore. Stick to writing poetry, will ya!

The original quote that began this part of the conversation in which I chose to enter questioned Charles' ability to know what Christians think of him as a Jew. You specifically phrased it, "And how do you know how Christians look at Jews"?

I answered with your own words from a previous post, which was all about your (a Christian's) position and the New Testament's position regarding Jews.

I summarized the viewpoint you provided. You claimed that I was mixed up about your viewpoint, but then confirmed all the things I said in the summary are said in the Bible. So everything I summarized as a viewpoint of the Christian Bible about Jews was in fact accurate by your own admission. To clarify and make sure you didn't hold a separate viewpoint different from the New Testament, I asked if you believed all these things that the Bible said. In this latest post you said you did.

Ergo, Jews can discern what Christians think about them by simply listening to the usually offensive things they have to say about them and reading the New Testament. Not a difficult argument to follow at all. That's the only thing I attempted to prove and you haven't rebutted that position, but confirmed it with each and every post.

I'm not an atheist. I'm not sure why you would think I am.

Rores28

03-25-2012, 03:16 PM

I am always astounded at the irrelevant retorts and half-clever rebuttals that constitute the modern atheist discourse. That it could ever be considered reasonable to confuse such an innocuous assertion as that one has no objection to the practice of interpreting scripture with another that all interpretations are valid (and, at which point, the person responding conjures up the more salacious aspects of the Pentateuch, an objection that seems to be the first and last resort among so-called New Atheists) testifies to how ridiculous this conversation is.

I am assuming this was directed at my post. If not, disregard my response.

This is what was said.

“I don’t have a problem with interpretations. I value people seeking the word. Is my version, the King James Bible, better or worse than the Quran? It is not for me to say.”

Let’s say for arguments sake that I did misinterpret and the above author was claiming that they have no objection with the “practice of interpreting scripture.” What would be the functional difference? Presumably individuals are interpreting scripture either out of some scholarly pursuit or because they believe they are reading a divinely inspired text, or a combination of both. This is why they are engaging in the “practice of interpreting scripture.” If they believe the text is divinely inspired than their behavior is going to be driven by their interpretation of the text.

Practice of interpreting scripture --> forming an understanding about scripture via interpretations --> acting/behaving in a manner consistent with that understanding/interpretation

What might Bad Grass have been saying then? That she/he didn’t mind people practicing interpretation so long as they didn’t put it to any sort of functional use either to gain a deeper knowledge of scripture or to act on that knowledge? If so, it seems too vacuous a statement to even bother uttering it.

As to “more salacious aspects of the Pentateuch” I did not even realize the hypothetical scenarios I proposed were in the Pentateuch (had to look that word up :p), although I’m not particularly surprised that they are. My knowledge of the bible comes mostly from church and picking about the Bible here and there. These scenarios were merely meant to act as things that I was guessing the OP would obviously not approve of. I was going to say something more ludicrous like splashing acid in the face of every baby whose name starts with the letter “S” but I assumed I would get people saying that no one could possibly interpret anything in the bible in that way.

I was simply pointing out the age old problem with interpretation, a perhaps banal or insipid statement when applied to fictive literature. Whenever the literature in question is taken to be divinely inspired, however, and bears directly on the eternal consequences of one's being the gravity of that interpretation is greatly heightened.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 03:25 PM

Ergo, Jews can discern what Christians think about them by simply listening to the usually offensive things they have to say about them and reading the New Testament. Not a difficult argument to follow at all. That's the only thing I attempted to prove and you haven't rebutted that position, but confirmed it with each and every post.

I'm not an atheist. I'm not sure why you would think I am.

So is it offensive to a Jewish person that I point out that they plotted to murder Jesus Christ? When I am only bringing up the facts? Does this somehow make me a Jew hater? Come on man, give me a break. If the Jews have a problem with the New Testament, so be it. It seems to me God had a problem with the Jews, and you can quote me on that. Just like he had a problem with many of us, including gentiles.

I know we live in a time we are supposed to all "get along" but that's B.S. History is history and you can't change it.

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 03:30 PM

Mikhail Bulgakov, in The Master and Margarita, re-imagines and retells the crucifixion story from the point of view of Pilate, who, in his version, is quite sympathetic to Jesus's plight. Indeed, it seems as if the two men are on the road to friendship. (Note that in the Master and Margarita, this account of the Passion is just a story within a larger story.) In the novel, Jesus claims, while conversing with Pilate, that he in fact made no claim of divinity—that he was misunderstood—and that other elements of what we know as the standard Biblical account were preposterous fabrications by his opponents. What is remarkable about this version is that Bulgakov makes it sound more historically plausible than the standard version, and does so in such a way as to make Jesus sound even more sagacious and virtuous than the New Testament does. The great take-away for me in reading Bulgakov is how easily allegedly historical accounts can be distorted, especially when written at great historical distance (as the Gospels were), and by persons motivated by firmly entrenched dogma.

Edit: Oops, I forgot to address the initial point of this thread: Bulgakov does the best analysis I have ever read of the politics involved In Jesus's cucifixion and precisely how Pilate's authority related to and was reconciled to that of the Jewish religious establishment at the time. I would love to know what historians think of his analysis (I mean real historians, not Bible fans.)

SPOILER ALERT: READ NO FURTHER IF YOU PLAN TO READ BULGAKOV: In the end of this story, Pilate, from a sense of outrage and in deference to his respect for Jesus, has his secret police track Judas down and murder him.

Wyatt,

I am not at all bothered by your impromptu summary of *The Master and Margarita*--even if you have done so under the pretense that it adds to the conversation. Your point seems to be that because some time elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus and the recording of the event, there must be some material distortion in the text. You couldn't be more wrong.

Your post reminds me of a hilarious interview the renowned secular Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman gave to some atheist radio show. Despite not believing in God, himself, Ehrman spent most of his time trying to convince the radio show host that, no, Jesus did, in fact, exist historically. The host kept coming up with these typically horrid objections that just astonished Ehrman. Among all these objections was the typical "but the Gospels were written well after Jesus lived" as though there were some antique Enquirer chronicling the other persons of Jesus' time. 99% of all antique histories were written well after their subjects had died. If we must presume that any history written after the death of the subject to be materially distorted, then we must ignore virtually everything from antiquity.

I'm not suggesting that you must accept Jesus as the son of God, but the fact that the Gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus is no problem whatsoever. That is just typical of the time period. Moreover, no other figure from antiquity has such a compelling record of text. From the time period, the most reliable account of any person is that of Jesus. Again, you don't have to believe in the miracles; Ehrman, himself, believes the texts have been distorted, but he believes that for reasons that have nothing to do with when they were written.

And by the way...

Any person in the West deserving of the descriptor of "literate" is what you condescendingly call a "Bible fan." The phenomenon of deriding the Bible--even among atheists--is an entirely recent development. All you accomplish by scowling at the Bible is to betray your entire unlettered life. After all, everyone knows the Bible--whether one believes in God or not--is a foundational text in western culture, one that is aesthetically pleasing, philosophically penetrating and thoroughly deserving of the title Great Book.

I am assuming this was directed at my post. If not, disregard my response.

This is what was said.

“I don’t have a problem with interpretations. I value people seeking the word. Is my version, the King James Bible, better or worse than the Quran? It is not for me to say.”

Let’s say for arguments sake that I did misinterpret and the above author was claiming that they have no objection with the “practice of interpreting scripture.” What would be the functional difference? Presumably individuals are interpreting scripture either out of some scholarly pursuit or because they believe they are reading a divinely inspired text, or a combination of both. This is why they are engaging in the “practice of interpreting scripture.” If they believe the text is divinely inspired than their behavior is going to be driven by their interpretation of the text.

Practice of interpreting scripture --> forming an understanding about scripture via interpretations --> acting/behaving in a manner consistent with that understanding/interpretation

What might Bad Grass have been saying then? That she/he didn’t mind people practicing interpretation so long as they didn’t put it to any sort of functional use either to gain a deeper knowledge of scripture or to act on that knowledge? If so, it seems too vacuous a statement to even bother uttering it.

As to “more salacious aspects of the Pentateuch” I did not even realize the hypothetical scenarios I proposed were in the Pentateuch (had to look that word up :p), although I’m not particularly surprised that they are. My knowledge of the bible comes mostly from church and picking about the Bible here and there. These scenarios were merely meant to act as things that I was guessing the OP would obviously not approve of. I was going to say something more ludicrous like splashing acid in the face of every baby whose name starts with the letter “S” but I assumed I would get people saying that no one could possibly interpret anything in the bible in that way.

I was simply pointing out the age old problem with interpretation, a perhaps banal or insipid statement when applied to fictive literature. Whenever the literature in question is taken to be divinely inspired, however, and bears directly on the eternal consequences of one's being the gravity of that interpretation is greatly heightened.

Rores,

I don't know exactly how to say this, but... I think your understanding of "interpretation" is a tad infantile. First, and most importantly, interpretation does not, in principle, entail any action beyond the text. Second, you seem to think that one has a choice about interpretation and that interpretation is the act of eschewing a more readily available "literal" understanding. You are interpreting this post as you read it--whether you want to. If I say we're on the internet, is it literally true? Are you and I literally on an object called the internet? Or is that a way of figuratively stating that we are involved in a complex form of communication involving the transfer of photons along a fiber optics cable? Is it literally true that I am in the United States. Is there even a literal object called "United States"?

You also seem to imply that because one happens to be interpreting a sacred text, one must be extra careful to adhere to some implausibly literal version so as to avoid beheading babies. The problems with your post are too numerous to adequately address here. Let me just try to set you straight on this one. Everyone understands--or should--that extra respect must be paid to sacred texts--not because God or gods wrote them and will smite you otherwise--but because their greatest treasures are enshrouded beneath monstrous complexities of historical context and seemingly opaque symbolism and they have, after all, withstood the test of time so that any deficiencies you immediately see in them are most likely reflections of your own deficiencies.

But all this is beside the point. The original poster was responding to someone who said that their disagreement sprang from a hostility to "other interpretations." The person responded by saying that he had no problem with persons interpreting the Bible and, in fact, was in favor of "seeking the word." Your response seems to commit the fallacy of begging the question in that you presume it is impossible to derive truth from such a text. You seem hostile to the text form the get-go, which is, by the way, the greatest failure in interpretation: to have some preconceived notion about the text before fully exploring it. If you're concerned that being open to interpretations of the Bible will lead to abominable acts, let me reassure you that when the poster in question responds that he is in favor of seeking the word, it sounds to me like he understands that interpreting the Bible is an ongoing process one never completes, which a perfectly humble, perfectly healthy approach to reading the Bible, King Lear or Charlotte's Web.

cafolini

03-25-2012, 04:22 PM

Nobody killed Jessup. He was in Hollywood in the 60's and they called him Superstar.

Scheherazade

03-25-2012, 04:35 PM

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

~

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 04:59 PM

So is it offensive to a Jewish person that I point out that they plotted to murder Jesus Christ? When I am only bringing up the facts? Does this somehow make me a Jew hater? Come on man, give me a break. If the Jews have a problem with the New Testament, so be it. It seems to me God had a problem with the Jews, and you can quote me on that. Just like he had a problem with many of us, including gentiles.

I know we live in a time we are supposed to all "get along" but that's B.S. History is history and you can't change it.

I think the problem with this discussion is that many fail to fully understand the Christian doctrine of the fallen state of man. I understand why some might think modern Christians take a dim view of Jews. Christians do, in fact, take a dim view of Jews, Germans, Italians, Americans and every other sort of person to have existed. It's simply not a judgment reserved for Jews. I think they just don't get that Christianity is, at its core, an indictment of humanity. Moreover, I think these same people misunderstand this as hypocrisy because they don't get that the biggest target for Christian criticism is the community of Christians. I don't think they understand that it's fairly common to encounter a sermon in a Christian church that is all about what's wrong with modern Christianity. I can't count the number of times I've heard a preacher tell his congregation, at great length, the problems with Christians and modern Christianity, but I can never recall a single preacher saying anything negative about Jews.

Is it true that the medieval Christian Church was anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Is it true that the Gospels or most modern Christian churches are anti-Semitic? Absolutely NOT.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 05:44 PM

I think the problem with this discussion is that many fail to fully understand the Christian doctrine of the fallen state of man. I understand why some might think modern Christians take a dim view of Jews. Christians do, in fact, take a dim view of Jews, Germans, Italians, Americans and every other sort of person to have existed. It's simply not a judgment reserved for Jews. I think they just don't get that Christianity is, at its core, an indictment of humanity. Moreover, I think these same people misunderstand this as hypocrisy because they don't get that the biggest target for Christian criticism is the community of Christians. I don't think they understand that it's fairly common to encounter a sermon in a Christian church that is all about what's wrong with modern Christianity. I can't count the number of times I've heard a preacher tell his congregation, at great length, the problems with Christians and modern Christianity, but I can never recall a single preacher saying anything negative about Jews.

Is it true that the medieval Christian Church was anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Is it true that the Gospels or most modern Christian churches are anti-Semitic? Absolutely NOT.

You said it well. I must agree with you. I have never been in a Church in my entire life where the topic of "Jews" came up. As a matter of fact just the opposite. I was taught to care about all people regardless of race or religion. This somehow out of left field assumption by some that Christians are persecuting the Jews or anyone else is blatantly false and misleading. It's coming from people who are rebel rousers and trouble makers.

KCurtis

03-25-2012, 05:57 PM

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 05:58 PM

Is it true that the medieval Christian Church was anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Is it true that the Gospels or most modern Christian churches are anti-Semitic? Absolutely NOT.

And what exactly was the medieval Christian church's anti-semitism based upon? Oh wait, accusations of deicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe_(Middle_Ages)#Accusations_o f_deicide), among other things, which is based on the Gospels. You know, an important point for those of us who care about real history and whose ancestors suffered because of it.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-25-2012, 06:03 PM

I'm not claiming nothing. Are we not talking about the Bible? The Bible says these things. No? Should I speak s-l-o-w-l-y ? Everything you claim that I claim is clearly written in the Bible.
All Drk was trying to do was find out what you, personally, think. Instead you danced around the question and responded with an attitude. It's really that simple.

So is it offensive to a Jewish person that I point out that they plotted to murder Jesus Christ? When I am only bringing up the facts?
"Facts" seems to have become a fast and loose phrase in this thread.

Your point seems to be that because some time elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus and the recording of the event, there must be some material distortion in the text. You couldn't be more wrong.
So, why couldn't he be more wrong, exactly, because it seems the only argument (as long-winded as it is--do you make your posts long in an attempt to make them seem more valid?) is that almost all history has been recorded after the fact, so if we think the Bible has historical inaccuracies due to the time that elapsed between the occurrences and the recording, then all of recorded history does, too. So this supports your argument that the Bible isn't accurate how, exactly? I think the Bible is probably as accurate as any recorded history from more than a few centuries ago, and that's not completely so. It probably got a lot of things right and it probably got a lot of things wrong. And I really don't see how one can say that time elapsed between an event and the recording of that event wouldn't create discrepancies. This is just illogical--word of mouth (the only way the information about Christ would have been passed on until it was written down) is hardly reliable.

After all, everyone knows the Bible--whether one believes in God or not--is a foundational text in western culture, one that is aesthetically pleasing, philosophically penetrating and thoroughly deserving of the title Great Book.
Agreed, and I highly doubt anyone on this forum wouldn't. This has nothing to do with its factual accuracy, though.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 06:08 PM

Jesus was a person, and he was killed by the Romans. His father was named Joseph. He was a human being, he is not God nor the son of God. I have learned about Jesus as a person from Historians, nobody else. Post questions like this, expect answers from people who are not religious also.

Waaa? What book you quoting from? Charlie and Lola? Jesus was a person? His father was Joseph? Yeah so where you getting your "historical" perspective from? That's like saying, the earth was flat before it was round because people thought so. I have no idea what Jesus you are talking about. Maybe a Jesus' from Peru? LOL

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 06:14 PM

I think the problem with this discussion is that many fail to fully understand the Christian doctrine of the fallen state of man. I understand why some might think modern Christians take a dim view of Jews. Christians do, in fact, take a dim view of Jews, Germans, Italians, Americans and every other sort of person to have existed. It's simply not a judgment reserved for Jews. I think they just don't get that Christianity is, at its core, an indictment of humanity. Moreover, I think these same people misunderstand this as hypocrisy because they don't get that the biggest target for Christian criticism is the community of Christians. I don't think they understand that it's fairly common to encounter a sermon in a Christian church that is all about what's wrong with modern Christianity. I can't count the number of times I've heard a preacher tell his congregation, at great length, the problems with Christians and modern Christianity, but I can never recall a single preacher saying anything negative about Jews.

Is it true that the medieval Christian Church was anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Is it true that the Gospels or most modern Christian churches are anti-Semitic? Absolutely NOT.

I actually agree with all of this. But recognize that the "modern Christian church" is really a 20th century development. Most modern churches do not preach persecution against other people or religions (there are some that still do), but once again, this is a relatively new development.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 06:15 PM

All Drk was trying to do was find out what you, personally, think. Instead you danced around the question and responded with an attitude. It's really that simple.

No, all dark was trying to do was stir the pot. My "attitude" was in response to his stirring the pot and putting words in my mouth. I don't know if you read all the responses and frankly I don't care. Fact is, I danced around nothing. This whole thing started when "certain" individuals started chiming in on stuff they know so little about. As a matter of fact, they know nothing about Christianity. Only what they are told from newspaper clippings, old files, late night talk shows and some revisionist in history telling them what to think. I think I pretty much know where you're coming from.

And what "facts" are coming up fast and loose? Engage me....

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 06:16 PM

Waaa? What book you quoting from? Charlie and Lola? Jesus was a person? His father was Joseph? Yeah so where you getting your "historical" perspective from? That's like saying, the earth was flat before it was round because people thought so. I have no idea what Jesus you are talking about. Maybe a Jesus' from Peru? LOL

There are other accounts besides the Gospels written at the time (Josephus is one that comes to mind) - debating the accuracy or legitimacy of these sources is really no different than debating the legitimacy of the Gospels.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 06:23 PM

There are other accounts besides the Gospels written at the time (Josephus is one that comes to mind) - debating the accuracy or legitimacy of these sources is really no different than debating the legitimacy of the Gospels.

Did you know Charlie that no one at the time doubted the miracles Jesus did? Did you know that? There has never been a book I know of disputing of them. Even the Jews at the time acknowledge that he did great miracles. So what are these "other sources" saying? Fact is, almost every one in history, especially a guy like Jesus will have his distracters. And certainly for a man who promoted the kingdom of God and peace, is astounding!! Shows how many haters are in the world.

I mean where do you think he got all his followers from, is own words? Come on man, he performed countless miracles that drew in the crowds!! Geesh. He had to prove to these thick headed people like us that He was really God.

How do you think early Christianity got spread? through the gospels? No. They were written some 70 years after Jesus walked the earth. It was through the miracles he performed! People gathered and saw them and they spread it around that region of the world. Why do you think Christianity did not just die off if it was just a hoax? Or as some call it, a bunch of power hungry Jews who didn't want another preacher upstaging them? Because they actually saw him rise from the dead. And they preached around that part of the world going off into martyrdom for it!! Don't you think they would have given up the game if they knew it was just all bells and whistles? Come on man

JCamilo

03-25-2012, 06:25 PM

And what exactly was the medieval Christian church's anti-semitism based upon? Oh wait, accusations of deicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe_(Middle_Ages)#Accusations_o f_deicide), among other things, which is based on the Gospels. You know, an important point for those of us who care about real history and whose ancestors suffered because of it.

See Drk, only an atheist (not a jew, muslim, budhist, etc) like you is unable to accept the historical revisionism that transformed the context of jewish-christian rupture as allegory to all humankind fabricated centuries after it.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 06:28 PM

As a matter of fact, they know nothing about Christianity. Only what they are told from newspaper clippings, old files, late night talk shows and some revisionist in history telling them what to think. I think I pretty much know where you're coming from.

Or you know I could always ask like the bagillion Christians around me about their faith, read the early church fathers, read the New Testament, listen to lectures from eminent scholars on the New Testament, take some history classes, actually attend church services, listen to preachers on TV (not late night secular talk shows).

See Drk, only an atheist (not a jew, muslim, budhist, etc) like you is unable to accept the historical revisionism that transformed the context of jewish-christian rupture as allegory to all humankind fabricated centuries after it.

Heh. The weirdest part of this conversation, though, is the way some people are acting like this is the first time some of us are ever encountering a Christian or hearing their beliefs and doctrines.

All Drk was trying to do was find out what you, personally, think. Instead you danced around the question and responded with an attitude. It's really that simple.

"Facts" seems to have become a fast and loose phrase in this thread.

Exactly. It's amazing how much dancing it took before he finally answered the damn question.

Obviously a fact according to this thread is anything found in a book. So obviously Jesus is the Messiah because the New Testament said so, obviously Jesus is not the Messiah, but just a prophet because the Koran said so, and obviously in a galaxy far far away in the distant past I will be able to use the Force.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 06:46 PM

DarkShadows, this need not get personal. I have listened to you and I find you know very little about Christianity, Period! But take comfort cause many people don't.

Charles Darnay

03-25-2012, 06:47 PM

Did you know Charlie that no one at the time doubted the miracles Jesus did? Did you know that? There has never been a book I know of disputing of them. Even the Jews at the time acknowledge that he did great miracles. So what are these "other sources" saying? Fact is, almost every one in history, especially a guy like Jesus will have his distracters. And certainly for a man who promoted the kingdom of God and peace, is astounding!! Shows how many haters are in the world.

I mean where do you think he got all his followers from, is own words? Come on man, he performed countless miracles that drew in the crowds!! Geesh. He had to prove to these thick headed people like us that He was really God.

I do think he got all his followers from his own words and then words of his followers created new followers....that's usually how it goes.

Consider this quote from late 1st century Rome.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

Josephus recognizes that he was your above-average man - for the works he did and the lessons he taught - but he is still a man. Josephus acknowledges that his followers said that he appeared to him three days after his death, but the important point there is "his followers said". So yes, I think "even the Jews at the time" acknowledged great works - but the jump from great works to miracles is still a big one because he was confined by the limitations of humanity.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 06:50 PM

DarkShadows, this need not get personal. I have listened to you and I find you know very little about Christianity, Period! But take comfort cause many people don't.

Which is pretty weird considering everything I stated some Christians believe in you and the Bible agreed that you believed. Does that mean you don't know much about Christianity either?

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 06:50 PM

I do think he got all his followers from his own words and then words of his followers created new followers....that's usually how it goes.

Consider this quote from late 1st century Rome.

Josephus recognizes that he was your above-average man - for the works he did and the lessons he taught - but he is still a man. Josephus acknowledges that his followers said that he appeared to him three days after his death, but the important point there is "his followers said". So yes, I think "even the Jews at the time" acknowledged great works - but the jump from great works to miracles is still a big one because he was confined by the limitations of humanity.

I'm very familiar with the quote, so what's it prove? This guy was not even around at the time. Fact is, the gospel did spread due to miracles more so than word of mouth. It's the nature of people, don't ya think? People are kinda thick headed I do believe.

Which is pretty weird considering everything I stated some Christians believe in you and the Bible agreed with. Does that mean you don't know much about Christianity either?

You may or may not have read the Bible, I don't know. Now understanding the Bible is a different beast. Many people I know of intellectually know of the Bible. What does that prove? The devil knew about the gospel too, no? Did that make him a believer? Fact is, most "intellectuals" will never stoop so low as to humble themselves in front of a God they know so little about.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 07:00 PM

You may or may not have read the Bible, I don't know. Now understanding the Bible is a different beast. Many people I know of intellectually know of the Bible. What does that prove? The devil knew about the gospel too, no? Did that make him a believer? Fact is, most "intellectuals" will never stoop so low as to humble themselves in front of a God they know so little about.

Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 07:03 PM

Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One

Your point?

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 07:09 PM

Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One

Your point?

A prayer was the only response I could think of to your odd ramblings about intellectuals not being believers given that I already stated earlier that I believe in God and your comments had nothing to do with anything.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 07:19 PM

What God do you believe in? I was ready to ask you about the big bang theory. And the fact that we came from monkeys. Or that the earth is now round but used to be flat. Whatever

Fact is we all come out of our mothers knowing Shi*T. We become intellectuals after reading the funny's in the Sunday papers.

mortalterror

03-25-2012, 07:50 PM

One need not rely on the New Testament Gospels alone for corroboration of Jesus and his execution. Josephus and Tacitus both acknowledge these events and they are generally considered reputable contemporary historians of the era. I don't know what is so confusing to people about the story as we have it.

A western superpower (Rome) occupied a middle-eastern country (Judea) after a massive attack by a madman (Mithridates). The religious fanatics and freedom fighters (Zealots) responded with acts of terror and assassination. The western power (Rome) sided with a more moderate faction (the Pharisees) who could keep the other factions in line. The faction in power kept the peace, but would also abuse it's powers and falsely accuse political opponents (Jesus) of crimes to scapegoat their rivals while increasing their own powers.

This is also the context for the death of Socrates, another pacifist patriot who met his end during the factional infighting occasioned by the occupation of Athens after the Peloponnesian War. Of course, if you just read Plato or the Gospels you wouldn't have a clue that massive civil wars, regional wars, occupations, civil unrest, political assassinations, purges, crumbling governments, and mystery cults were de rigueur in those periods.

Drkshadow03

03-25-2012, 07:58 PM

WyattGwyon

03-25-2012, 08:23 PM

Wyatt,

I am not at all bothered by your impromptu summary of *The Master and Margarita*--even if you have done so under the pretense that it adds to the conversation. Your point seems to be that because some time elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus and the recording of the event, there must be some material distortion in the text. You couldn't be more wrong.

No, you did not read what I wrote carefully. I said "can," not "must," meaning that one would be wise to have a skeptical eye in reading these kinds of accounts. You are aware, for example, that the three days in the grave followed by resurrection story was already an old trope in the time of Jesus, repeated in numerous earlier texts. (See Patrick Tierney's The Highest Altar) This suggests that the best explanation for its presence in the Gospels is not the recording of an observed historical fact but the repetition of a trope conventionally invoked during that era for the specific purpose of deification. It's formulaic.

Among all these objections was the typical "but the Gospels were written well after Jesus lived" as though there were some antique Enquirer chronicling the other persons of Jesus' time. 99% of all antique histories were written well after their subjects had died. If we must presume that any history written after the death of the subject to be materially distorted, then we must ignore virtually everything from antiquity.

I'm not suggesting that you must accept Jesus as the son of God, but the fact that the Gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus is no problem whatsoever. That is just typical of the time period. Moreover, no other figure from antiquity has such a compelling record of text. From the time period, the most reliable account of any person is that of Jesus.

This assertion is patently absurd. By my calculations, this documentation you cite consists of less than ten percent of the subject's life chronicled a century after the fact. Have you heard of Alexander the Great? Julius Cesar? These men were written about copiously by contemporaries who actually knew them.

Again, you don't have to believe in the miracles; Ehrman, himself, believes the texts have been distorted, but he believes that for reasons that have nothing to do with when they were written.

We have no idea how much these accounts were or were not distorted, or why for that matter.

And by the way...

Any person in the West deserving of the descriptor of "literate" is what you condescendingly call a "Bible fan." The phenomenon of deriding the Bible--even among atheists--is an entirely recent development. All you accomplish by scowling at the Bible is to betray your entire unlettered life. After all, everyone knows the Bible--whether one believes in God or not--is a foundational text in western culture, one that is aesthetically pleasing, philosophically penetrating and thoroughly deserving of the title Great Book.

I did not deride the Bible—or anything else for that matter. I was merely hoping to deter those who regard the Bible as a reliable historical document from answering my query, because I wanted answers from those with actual expertise in the field (historians, for example).

And by the way . . .
You know nothing of my life in letters, my knowledge of the Bible, or my attitude toward its contents, its literary value, or its cultural significance. Which is to say that your comments on these matters are exactly as carefully reasoned and argued as the rest of your response.

Finally, from this and past exchanges and your apparent inability to closely read others' writing, I have long since pegged you as a troll. You aren't worth my time and I won't respond further.

BienvenuJDC

03-25-2012, 08:41 PM

and obviously in a galaxy far far away in the distant past I will be able to use the Force.

WAIT A MINUTE...you are FAR too old to start THAT training...

Rores28

03-25-2012, 08:42 PM

Rores,
I don't know exactly how to say this, but... I think your understanding of "interpretation" is a tad infantile. First, and most importantly, interpretation does not, in principle, entail any action beyond the text.

Of course not, but often it does. This, I addressed in my original response (see scholarly pursuit vs. understanding that it is a divinely inspired text).

Second, you seem to think that one has a choice about interpretation and that interpretation is the act of eschewing a more readily available "literal" understanding.

I do not think this. This is a view you are foisting onto me. I think when you interpret a text, you read the text and internalize and discern some form of meaning from it. Meanings can be different, some interpretations have certain behavioral consequences, some have no behavioral consequences. Some behavioral consequences are good, some are bad.

You are interpreting this post as you read it--whether you want to. If I say we're on the internet, is it literally true? Are you and I literally on an object called the internet? Or is that a way of figuratively stating that we are involved in a complex form of communication involving the transfer of photons along a fiber optics cable?
The latter. This is why I do care about interpretations of things, because interpretations generally (though of course not always) have consequences. If I believed the former it might lead me to some strange and unhelpful assumptions.

You also seem to imply that because one happens to be interpreting a sacred text, one must be extra careful to adhere to some implausibly literal version so as to avoid beheading babies.

Again no. In some cases a literal interpretation of texts could lead to worse consequences. The interpretation matters more in a sacred text than others because there is a greater likelihood that individuals will base their behavior on what is in that sort of text.

Everyone understands--or should--that extra respect must be paid to sacred texts--not because God or gods wrote them and will smite you otherwise--but because their greatest treasures are enshrouded beneath monstrous complexities of historical context and seemingly opaque symbolism and they have, after all, withstood the test of time so that any deficiencies you immediately see in them are most likely reflections of your own deficiencies.

I think you may have said this in response to this:
“Whenever the literature in question is taken to be divinely inspired, however, and bears directly on the eternal consequences of one's being the gravity of that interpretation is greatly heightened.”
I think I may have been a little vague in what I was implying. While its true that I was implying that it matters directly to the person who could go to heaven or hell, and because they could go to heaven or hell, I also meant that when stakes like that are on the table texts like this are extra likely (and reasonably so) to affect one’s behavior. So if you believe in the God of Christianity it matters directly to you, and if you don’t it matters what people who do believe in the God of Christianity think, because it may have broader implications in the world at large.
But of course extra respect should be paid to a text if one’s interpretations would lead them into eternal heaven or hell. And on a practical level it does. When younger I myself would ask for forgiveness after each and every perceived sin, and so did many other people I knew, including my girlfriend. I’m not saying your greatest treasures postulation isn’t also a part of this, but to imply that the damnation / salvation part isn’t important seems disingenuous.

But all this is beside the point. The original poster was responding to someone who said that their disagreement sprang from a hostility to "other interpretations." The person responded by saying that he had no problem with persons interpreting the Bible and, in fact, was in favor of "seeking the word."

This question is not meant to be snippy, but I’m honestly not quite sure what seeking the word means. Does this mean finding the interpretation that most corresponds to the one that God intended? To finding the meaning that is most personally enrichingl?

Your response seems to commit the fallacy of begging the question in that you presume it is impossible to derive truth from such a text. You seem hostile to the text form the get-go, which is, by the way, the greatest failure in interpretation: to have some preconceived notion about the text before fully exploring it.

I am not hostile to the text. I am, however, opposed to interpretations that have bad consequences.

If you're concerned that being open to interpretations of the Bible will lead to abominable acts, let me reassure you that when the poster in question responds that he is in favor of seeking the word, it sounds to me like he understands that interpreting the Bible is an ongoing process one never completes, which a perfectly humble, perfectly healthy approach to reading the Bible, King Lear or Charlotte's Web.

The fact that interpretation is an ongoing process says nothing about intermediate conclusions that are drawn along the way, or the behaviors that arise from those conclusions. I myself hold all sorts of tentative conclusions and consider, in a sense, that I have not fully arrived at hardly any “absolute truths.” I still, however, act according to the provisional truths or ideas or beliefs or whatever that I hold. For instance, I may not know for sure that the charity I give to is making the best use of its money, but the research I’ve done has convinced me to a great enough degree that I still in fact give to the charity. But I do so with a skeptical eye. So yes, I agree this is a favorable way to approach knowledge, or interpretation, or truth, or whatever you prefer to call it, but it doesn’t mean that it is without consequences. And it doesn’t mean that those consequences can’t be very serious.

Hmm... You may be onto something Wyatt. I hadn't considered that stuntpickle might be a troll.

Why do you think Christianity did not just die off if it was just a hoax? Or as some call it, a bunch of power hungry Jews who didn't want another preacher upstaging them? Because they actually saw him rise from the dead. And they preached around that part of the world going off into martyrdom for it!! Don't you think they would have given up the game if they knew it was just all bells and whistles? Come on man

I feel like you may be kidding or trolling but I'll respond in earnest anyway.

Again my knowledge of the Bible is limited, but I don't need to have knowledge of the Bible to refute your reasoning in this instance. Religions and beliefs persist constantly despite being factually inaccurate. Mormonism, Scientology, Cargo Cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) (these I think are pretty interesting if you've never read about them). Hoax's persist, misunderstandings persist, myths persist. It is fairly common.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 09:08 PM

I feel like you may be kidding or trolling but I'll respond in earnest anyway.

Again my knowledge of the Bible is limited, but I don't need to have knowledge of the Bible to refute your reasoning in this instance. Religions and beliefs persist constantly despite being factually inaccurate. Mormonism, Scientology, Cargo Cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) (these I think are pretty interesting if you've never read about them). Hoax's persist, misunderstandings persist, myths persist. It is fairly common.

Is it your nature to call everyone a troll who you cannot understand? Yeah I'm a troll like the moon is God.

And I'm not kidding. Those religions you point out are fringe religions based on psuedo Christianity.

So why should I even start to argue with someone who knows so very little about the Bible?

YesNo

03-25-2012, 09:11 PM

I suppose you can say that YesNo. Bare in mind though, that's like blaming the executioner for the death of a prisoner. When in reality, he was just doing his job, like the romans were doing. :p
I think it was those Italians (aka "Romans") who passed judgement on Jesus and sentenced him to crucifixion before they carried out the execution.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 09:16 PM

I think it was those Italians (aka "Romans") who passed judgement on Jesus and sentenced him to crucifixion before they carried out the execution.

Well yeah they did carry out the execution indeed. This was all fortold in the Old Testemant. The Jews of the day had no authority to carry out such acts. The Romans were the rulers of that region. It was the Jewish elders and high priest who conspired to cause the death of Jesus with trumped up false charges. Without them it would have never happened. That's not to say the Romans played no role, they did.

YesNo

03-25-2012, 09:27 PM

Josephus recognizes that he was your above-average man - for the works he did and the lessons he taught - but he is still a man. Josephus acknowledges that his followers said that he appeared to him three days after his death, but the important point there is "his followers said". So yes, I think "even the Jews at the time" acknowledged great works - but the jump from great works to miracles is still a big one because he was confined by the limitations of humanity.
Sometimes people who have died appear to those still living. These appearances are called "shared-death experiences". Many of the accounts in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles remind me of a shared-death experience especially when Jesus appears out of nowhere to someone and then later vanishes. I can see how a religion could be built on the how believers interpret these experiences.

Even resurrections are not unheard of. Some of the people who resurrect have what is known as a "near-death experience" which is interesting in its own right. I don't know whether Jesus resurrected or not, but I suspect he did not. If he did I suspect Pilate's soldiers would have crucified him a second time.

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 09:36 PM

No, you did not read what I wrote carefully. I said "can," not "must," meaning that one would be wise to have a skeptical eye in reading these kinds of accounts. You are aware, for example, that the three days in the grave followed by resurrection story was already an old trope in the time of Jesus, repeated in numerous earlier texts. (See Patrick Tierney's The Highest Altar) This suggests that the best explanation for its presence in the Gospels is not the recording of an observed historical fact but the repetition of a trope conventionally invoked during that era for the specific purpose of deification. It's formulaic.

This assertion is patently absurd. By my calculations, this documentation you cite consists of less than ten percent of the subject's life chronicled a century after the fact. Have you heard of Alexander the Great? Julius Cesar? These men were written about copiously by contemporaries who actually knew them.

We have no idea how much these accounts were or were not distorted, or why for that matter.

I did not deride the Bible—or anything else for that matter. I was merely hoping to deter those who regard the Bible as a reliable historical document from answering my query, because I wanted answers from those with actual expertise in the field (historians, for example).

And by the way . . .
You know nothing of my life in letters, my knowledge of the Bible, or my attitude toward its contents, its literary value, or its cultural significance. Which is to say that your comments on these matters are exactly as carefully reasoned and argued as the rest of your response.

Finally, from this and past exchanges and your apparent inability to closely read others' writing, I have long since pegged you as a troll. You aren't worth my time and I won't respond further.

You know what? This is hilarious. First, the little tantrum you throw in which you call me a troll and proclaim that you will not respond to me further is a picture perfect example of poisoning the well. Also, it's fairly convenient for you to respond to me at length and then declare that to be the end of the discussion. I agree that we've had contact on this forum before, which included you essentially calling Thomas Aquinas a moron and then exiting the discussion in a similarly overwrought fashion and, separately, you being fairly mystified by and suspicious of the idea that the singularity in Big Bang theory is a zero-volume entity, something that is fairly easy to check, but something you preferred to verify with your physicist friend who was, at the time, conveniently unavailable. Did he ever get back to you?

I understand perfectly what you wrote. YOU can try to weasel out of it by saying you didn't say "must", but rather "can", but it's completely irrelevant to the fact that you use as your mechanism for judgment a completely bogus measure that no one outside of internet message boards gives any credence to. For instance, you bring up Julius Caesar as a counterexample, but I don't think you understand that most of that contemporaneous writing about him was propaganda he wrote himself in his bid to take power, and most historians consider it highly unreliable. This is hardly a good example to bolster your argument about contemporaneous source material. You bring up two examples to make your point, but anyone with any understanding of antiquity knows that these are rare exceptions. What about the billions of other historical figures we don't have contemporaneous source material for? The fact that you bring up some book written for laypersons by a journalist (and which seems to have been panned as little more than a travelogue) as though it were some serious historical analysis is ridiculous.

You're right; I don't "know" anything about your life in letters other than what you present here, like that you think *The Highest Altar* is a good example of historical analysis or that the story of Jesus is simply a reworking of extant formulae or that a lack of contemporaneous source material regarding an antique subject is an indicator of falsity. You might as well walk into a survey course in Western Civilization and proclaim that the pyramids were made by aliens. That's about as sophisticated as your other points.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 10:02 PM

Sometimes people who have died appear to those still living. These appearances are called "shared-death experiences". Many of the accounts in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles remind me of a shared-death experience especially when Jesus appears out of nowhere to someone and then later vanishes. I can see how a religion could be built on the how believers interpret these experiences.

Even resurrections are not unheard of. Some of the people who resurrect have what is known as a "near-death experience" which is interesting in its own right.
I don't know whether Jesus resurrected or not, but I suspect he did not. If he did I suspect Pilate's soldiers would have crucified him a second time.

No he didn't. He ascended into heaven in the clouds. They were not to take God's son. As for the resurrections. Nowhere does it state that the resurrections were a "near-death experience" etc. As a fact of the matter is, Lazarus came forth from being wrapped in cloth. He "woke" when Jesus said "come forth!".

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 10:13 PM

The fact that interpretation is an ongoing process says nothing about intermediate conclusions that are drawn along the way, or the behaviors that arise from those conclusions. I myself hold all sorts of tentative conclusions and consider, in a sense, that I have not fully arrived at hardly any “absolute truths.” I still, however, act according to the provisional truths or ideas or beliefs or whatever that I hold. For instance, I may not know for sure that the charity I give to is making the best use of its money, but the research I’ve done has convinced me to a great enough degree that I still in fact give to the charity. But I do so with a skeptical eye. So yes, I agree this is a favorable way to approach knowledge, or interpretation, or truth, or whatever you prefer to call it, but it doesn’t mean that it is without consequences. And it doesn’t mean that those consequences can’t be very serious.

I'm having a hard time understanding how your post relates to you scolding someone for saying something fairly innocuous. It just seems that you're trying to frustrate the conversation, which is what most atheists seem to be doing these days. I don't see how you can take issue with someone saying they have no problem with interpreting the Bible, when you, yourself, seem to have no such problem either. You seem to be saying that interpretation is fine insofar as it leads to an understanding you're comfortable with, but you're not the arbiter of interpretation.

You haven't said this explicitly, but you seem to be suggesting that because sacred texts are not strictly materialistic, they need to be viewed with suspicion. Are you suggesting this? If so, you might not understand that there is sufficient warrant to hold non-materialistic views.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-25-2012, 10:13 PM

And what "facts" are coming up fast and loose? Engage me....
I said the term "facts" was being used fast and loose. Ironically, though, you Peter toy illustrated my point in a following post:

Did you know Charlie that no one at the time doubted the miracles Jesus did? Did you know that? There has never been a book I know of disputing of them. Even the Jews at the time acknowledge that he did great miracles. So what are these "other sources" saying? distracters.
None of what you said is even close to being at all provable, yet you've made so many statements like this in this thread they'd take at least an hour to compile.

DarkShadows, this need not get personal. I have listened to you and I find you know very little about Christianity, Period! But take comfort cause many people don't.
I've seen you say nothing about Christianity that isn't relatively conventional knowledge.

Finally, from this and past exchanges and your apparent inability to closely read others' writing, I have long since pegged you as a troll. You aren't worth my time and I won't respond further.
He is a troll. It's obvious. Look how much time he dedicates to insult a member's intelligence rather than actually have a conversation. (He quite conveniently illustrates my point above.) And he just writes off your point by acknowledging you're correct and then saying you're still wrong anyways. I think he gets away with trolling because his posts are so long.

Is it your nature to call everyone a troll who you cannot understand? Yeah I'm a troll like the moon is God.

He said you were trolling, not a troll. There's a difference. And you kind of are. You're being very confrontational.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 10:39 PM

I said the term "facts" was being used fast and loose. Ironically, though, you Peter toy illustrated my point in a following post:

None of what you said is even close to being at all provable, yet you've made so many statements like this in this thread they'd take at least an hour to compile.

I've seen you say nothing about Christianity that isn't relatively conventional knowledge.

First off, I'm a hell of a nice guy. That's number 1.

Number 2. I'm not trolling as you say because I feel I have a right to an opinion. Just as you do as well as others. You may not agree with me but I have a right to express my opinions on this very thread. I actually was attacked first. So I have a right to defend myself. That's the way these bullies work.

Number 3. Check out every past opinion I have expressed on this very site. You know me from the Personal Poetry threads because I've seen you there. I have been nothing but kind to people unless they cause trouble.

Number 4. Now its a pretty acceptable practice on this site in particular that certain bands of people get together to bash other members. I've had this particular problem on here in the past. That's one of the reasons I rarely come on here anymore. It's either you think like us mentality or we don't want you. I know who the trouble makers are. Whatever.

Number 5. I'm confrontational because have you ever had 3 or 4 posters continually attack your opinions? It's not fun I can assure you. These posters just want to make a point and spit you out and I won't let them because I know their tactics.

Now to the relative knowledge of Christianity. Well as two sober individuals (I assume you are) So what went on in the early days right after Christ died? Much of acts is based on these very accounts. I suggest you take a peak and brush up if you will. Lots of Miracles! Now I'm starting to trail off (I'm getting tired) so I'll wrap up.

I understand a lot of people have an issue with the Bible. I understand they have a hard time grasping that God came down in the flesh and performed miracles. I understand this well. I understand that people have a hard time understanding God period. Heck it ain't easy. The issue I have with some of these posters are they take what the Bible actually says and twist it into something it is not. I take issue with that. They can do it in the privacy of their own homes, fine. But to publicly make statements which are false I find repulsive.

For instance the Bible states Jesus is God. You may not like that. You may not believe that. You may laugh at that, but that's what the Bible states. All versions by the way. This is not some crazy play-it-loose interpretation on my part. So that's it, I'm outta here.

YesNo

03-25-2012, 10:42 PM

As for the resurrections. Nowhere does it state that the resurrections were a "near-death experience" etc. As a fact of the matter is, Lazarus came forth from being wrapped in cloth. He "woke" when Jesus said "come forth!".
I forgot about Lazarus. I guess he also resurrected.

Not everyone who dies and resurrects has a near-death experience to report. Only some of the them do.

What I am thinking of is that the sightings of Jesus and the communications with him by his followers after his death remind me of what someone who had a "shared-death experience" might have had.

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 10:58 PM

He is a troll. It's obvious. Look how much time he dedicates to insult a member's intelligence rather than actually have a conversation. (He quite conveniently illustrates my point above.) And he just writes off your point by acknowledging you're correct and then saying you're still wrong anyways. I think he gets away with trolling because his posts are so long.

It's about time our local forum policeman weighed in on the subject. Perhaps you'd like to offer me some more passive-aggressive antagonism disguised as helpful advice. Hmm?

The problem with this forum and internet fora in general is they are subject to the worst sort of groupthink outside a high school classroom. Dissent from the standard view of the group, and you end up getting these sort of frenetic rebuttals that shimmer with the tears of their authors and conclude with something along the lines of "you're just a troll; this conversation is over." Of course, if they really thought you were a troll they wouldn't have written an over-earnest bullet point rebuttal. I tend to feel it's just an easy way to excuse oneself from the conversation while saving face and attacking the other person's character. But it's not their fault. This phenomenon is just the ultimate evolution of a society that values social harmony over truth.

Of course, it would probably be pointless to try and point out the irony that I'm being called a troll by someone who just pops up from time to time to insult me.

Have a nice day M.

Rores28

03-25-2012, 11:03 PM

Is it your nature to call everyone a troll who you cannot understand? Yeah I'm a troll like the moon is God.

Not generally. Also I don't know the moon reference you are making.

And I'm not kidding. Those religions you point out are fringe religions based on psuedo Christianity.

The cargo cults are based on pseudo Christianity? Even so this does nothing to refute the point that erroneous beliefs can persist, which seemed to be the point of your post to which I was responding.

So why should I even start to argue with someone who knows so very little about the Bible?

Well I don't think we have to call it arguing. Dialectic would be more to my taste really. Again I don't really need in depth knowledge of the bible to challenge your logic about the persistence of beliefs in general.

But really the fact that I know so little about the Bible is exactly why you should engage me.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-25-2012, 11:05 PM

It's about time our local forum policeman weighed in on the subject. Perhaps you'd like to offer me some more passive-aggressive antagonism disguised as helpful advice. Hmm?

The problem with this forum and internet fora in general is they are subject to the worst sort of groupthink outside a high school classroom. Dissent from the standard view of the group, and you end up getting these sort of frenetic rebuttals that shimmer with the tears of their authors and conclude with something along the lines of "you're just a troll; this conversation is over." Of course, if they really thought you were a troll they wouldn't have written an over-earnest bullet point rebuttal. I tend to feel it's just an easy way to excuse oneself from the conversation while saving face and attacking the other person's character. But it's not their fault. This phenomenon is just the ultimate evolution of a society that values social harmony over truth.

Of course, it would probably be pointless to try and point out the irony that I'm being called a troll by someone who just pops up from time to time to insult me.

Have a nice day M.

This coming from a guy who pops up from time to time to insult everyone. I mean, it's not like I'm active every day on this forum, or was active in this thread before you were. :lol:

Rores28

03-25-2012, 11:08 PM

This phenomenon is just the ultimate evolution of a society that values social harmony over truth.

This seems over intellectualized. I think troll calling is the ultimate evolution of a bunch of dudes on the internet who understand how anonymity fosters troll like behaviors because they probably trolled at some point in their lives.

I know in my younger years I trolled with the best of them, if we're not mincing words, I was a total dick :)

stuntpickle

03-25-2012, 11:17 PM

Oh, yeah, your first post is so amiable. No hint of attitude or condescension at all. You really are the victim, here. :rolleyes5:

Look, M, try to consider that in nearly every single discussion of this sort on this site that ratio of participants is something like six atheists vs one theist. and that's being generous. Then consider that these discussions occur in a forum reserved for religious texts. Then consider that no one can post anything about religion or religious texts without being subjected to a subsequent deluge of atheist antagonism. Are you really trying to assert that the few Christians posting here are harassing the wealth of atheists posting here? Not even you could really believe this.

ShadowsCool

03-25-2012, 11:24 PM

Oh, yeah, your first post is so amiable. No hint of attitude or condescension at all. You really are the victim, here. :rolleyes5:

okay then

Rores28

03-25-2012, 11:32 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding how your post relates to you scolding someone for saying something fairly innocuous. It just seems that you're trying to frustrate the conversation, which is what most atheists seem to be doing these days. I don't see how you can take issue with someone saying they have no problem with interpreting the Bible, when you, yourself, seem to have no such problem either. You seem to be saying that interpretation is fine insofar as it leads to an understanding you're comfortable with, but you're not the arbiter of interpretation.

It relates in the way that it did in my original post. It's become fashionable recently for people to say things like well that is your interpretation and this is mine and that's fine we have different interpretations, no problem etc. But they don't really mean this, because if an interpretation becomes too divergent from their own or has consequences that the person finds too distasteful they most certainly will have a problem with interpretation. And as I've said, allowing for varying interpretations of anything is not innocuous, as some interpretations have serious and bad consequences.

"You seem to be saying that interpretation is fine insofar as it leads to an understanding you're comfortable with, but you're not the arbiter of interpretation"

This is exactly what I'm saying. There might be hundreds of interpretations that don't have bad consequences and hundreds that do. I would be very opposed to those that have bad consequences, and only marginally uncomfortable with all those that don't.

I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of interpretation, whatever that means.

You haven't said this explicitly, but you seem to be suggesting that because sacred texts are not strictly materialistic, they need to be viewed with suspicion. Are you suggesting this? If so, you might not understand that there is sufficient warrant to hold non-materialistic views.

I'm not suggesting this. Non-materialism doesn't really mean anything to me.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-25-2012, 11:36 PM

I do think it's funny that I've been called the forum policeman AND one of the forum's main insulters in the same thread though. WHO AM I? :lol:

BienvenuJDC

03-25-2012, 11:36 PM

This is why I refuse to get involved in these discussions much anymore.

Rores28

03-25-2012, 11:39 PM

Look, M, try to consider that in nearly every single discussion of this sort on this site that ratio of participants is something like six atheists vs one theist. and that's being generous. Then consider that these discussions occur in a forum reserved for religious texts. Then consider that no one can post anything about religion or religious texts without being subjected to a subsequent deluge of atheist antagonism. Are you really trying to assert that the few Christians posting here are harassing the wealth of atheists posting here? Not even you could really believe this.

I lol'd. :)

Edit: Realize that not every non-believer who engages you is trying to be intentionally antagonistic. But many non-believers can't really express their doubts or problems with religion, or probe believers in person because of how awkward it is or inevitably becomes. So unfortunately, I think you on internet forums bear the brunt of much of non-believers built up ... doubts/questions etc.

BienvenuJDC

03-25-2012, 11:41 PM

I lol'd. :)

Why??

Rores28

03-25-2012, 11:51 PM

Why??

I mean I think its basically true. It was just funny to hear it verbalized.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 12:34 AM

It relates in the way that it did in my original post. It's become fashionable recently for people to say things like well that is your interpretation and this is mine and that's fine we have different interpretations, no problem etc. But they don't really mean this, because if an interpretation becomes too divergent from their own or has consequences that the person finds too distasteful they most certainly will have a problem with interpretation. And as I've said, allowing for varying interpretations of anything is not innocuous, as some interpretations have serious and bad consequences.

First, the poster was not saying that, in principle, all interpretations are valid, which is what you are arguing against. They were saying that their initial point wasn't to debar interpretation.

"You seem to be saying that interpretation is fine insofar as it leads to an understanding you're comfortable with, but you're not the arbiter of interpretation"

This is exactly what I'm saying. There might be hundreds of interpretations that don't have bad consequences and hundreds that do. I would be very opposed to those that have bad consequences, and only marginally uncomfortable with all those that don't.

I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of interpretation, whatever that means.

Okay, if this is exactly what you're saying, then I'm saying you are exactly wrong. An arbiter is an authoritative judge. You are not the arbiter of "bad consequences", which is to say you do not get to decide on your own authority what constitutes "bad consequences", just as you don't get to decide on your own authority what constitutes an allowable interpretation. It sounds as if you're saying that, unless someone comes up with an interpretation you like, they are prohibited from making an interpretation--or, at least, should be. Moreover, the assertion that this or that outcome is objectively bad requires some binding transcendent mechanism to conquer your own subjectivity; otherwise, you are relegated to relying on conventionality, which is hardly a reliable means of discerning truth and is, in fact, a variety fallacy known as argumentum ad populum--or argument from consensus.

Of course, I would agree that some interpretations are better than others, but, then again, I rely on a transcendent mechanism called God. And if you try to impeach my transcendent mechanism, I would ask "on what authority?" Perhaps you would say reason. Perhaps you would say science. But neither reason nor science recommend themselves. In fact, the only self-justifying mechanism I know of is God. He is the unmoved mover.

You don't get to make demands about what people are allowed to interpret unless you have some ironclad, objective reason for it.

Do you have such a reason?

See Drk, only an atheist (not a jew, muslim, budhist, etc) like you is unable to accept the historical revisionism that transformed the context of jewish-christian rupture as allegory to all humankind fabricated centuries after it.

Only a serious scholar of Dante, like you J, is able to discern the true Hitlerian meaning of the Christian Gospels. Of course, I'm sure everyone is, as I am, eagerly wondering what Borges thought of all this. Thoughts?

OrphanPip

03-26-2012, 01:37 AM

Look, M, try to consider that in nearly every single discussion of this sort on this site that ratio of participants is something like six atheists vs one theist. and that's being generous. Then consider that these discussions occur in a forum reserved for religious texts. Then consider that no one can post anything about religion or religious texts without being subjected to a subsequent deluge of atheist antagonism. Are you really trying to assert that the few Christians posting here are harassing the wealth of atheists posting here? Not even you could really believe this.

Well technically this thread has involved about 2 Jews, 3 atheist, 4 Christians and I'm not sure what YesNo's or JC's specific views are.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 01:40 AM

Well technically this thread has involved about 2 Jews, 3 atheist, 4 Christians and I'm not sure what YesNo's or JC's specific views are.

Are you counting yourself and all the vultures who will appear here tomorrow when they realize there's activity in this thread? Anyone who would describe this forum as a place where Christians push atheists around should not be taken seriously.

OrphanPip

03-26-2012, 01:51 AM

Are you counting yourself and all the vultures who will appear here tomorrow when they realize there's activity in this thread? Anyone who would describe this forum as a place where Christians push atheists around should not be taken seriously.

I didn't suggest it was, I was suggesting that your view that the forum regularly involved gangs of roving atheist (sorry "new-atheist") foaming at the mouth, ready to prey on poor unsuspecting Christians, was perhaps not in line with the reality of how the participation in this thread has played out.

Darcy88

03-26-2012, 01:56 AM

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 01:59 AM

I didn't suggest it was, I was suggesting that your view that the forum regularly involved gangs of roving atheist (sorry "new-atheist") foaming at the mouth, ready to prey on poor unsuspecting Christians, was perhaps not in line with the reality of how the participation in this thread has played out.

Only someone suffering from a severe case of literalism could mistake my comment for an actual tally of the participants in this thread rather than a judgment about what generally goes on in this forum. The reality is that the majority of the active Christians in this forum are present in this thread and only a small portion of the atheists are. Why don't you take your abacus and start tallying some other threads? But anyway, why are there that many atheists demanding evidence for God in a religious texts forum anyway?

And what exactly was the medieval Christian church's anti-semitism based upon? Oh wait, accusations of deicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe_(Middle_Ages)#Accusations_o f_deicide), among other things, which is based on the Gospels. You know, an important point for those of us who care about real history and whose ancestors suffered because of it.

This is so misinformed. You do realize that, in the 4th Century, Christianity was co opted by the Roman state and that it stopped being the religion of the downtrodden and became the religion of the oppressor, right? I'm beginning to think you are constitutionally incapable of listening to anything I say, so I have provided here a link to a video in which fairly well regarded secular professor Noam Chomsky explains what you don't understand, which, by the way, should be common knowledge. Make sure you listen to the end when chides the interviewer for making assumptions about the character of American Evangelicals. It's so funny to hear you people say you understand Christian doctrine so well and subsequently demonstrate a complete misunderstanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNDG7ErY-k4

Drkshadow03

03-26-2012, 07:49 AM

This is so misinformed. You do realize that, in the 4th Century, Christianity was co opted by the Roman state and that it stopped being the religion of the downtrodden and became the religion of the oppressor, right?

Of course, I'm a history minor. But, nevertheless, this is a red herring that has no real bearing on any argument I made. My argument was in the medieval period one major version of anti-Semitism was the accusation of Deicide, which was based on the fact that the Christians at the time believed the Jews killed Jesus as written in the Gospels. Anyone who has studied the history of anti-Semitism or general medieval history would know that. This is an historical fact. Saying that the oppressors adopted the religion doesn't challenge that point. Not to mention medieval history implies a period long after the Roman Empire fell.

I realize you quoted this point practically verbatim from Chomsky’s video. Chomsky presents a history where Christianity was the religion of pacifist victims, but then became the religion of the Oppressors (the rich and powerful) when Rome adopted it. While not untrue exactly, it is certainly a superficial understanding of history, which is ironic given his comments at the end of the video talking about how the world is much more complicated. To say any religion is the religion of the the downtrodden or the oppressor is a ridiculous oversimplification. Poor people in the various European countries continued to be Christians along with the rich and powerful nobility and church officials. None of this changes the fact that the anti-Semitic violence done during the Middle Ages based on the charges of Deicide stems from the Gospel accounts.

I couldn’t agree more with him that the world and history is complicated; to pretend all Christians just love their neighbors and want to begin radical political movements to liberate oppressed societies is as disingenuous as pretending all Christians are anti-Semitic racists. None of which I suggested.

Just because Christianity contains radical ideas, especially when understood through the lens of liberation theology or a more mainstream literary reading, doesn’t mean some other ideas found in the books aren’t anti-Semitic or unsavory as well.

I'm beginning to think you are constitutionally incapable of listening to anything I say, so I have provided here a link to a video in which fairly well regarded secular professor Noam Chomsky explains what you don't understand, which, by the way, should be common knowledge.

Given that I've only directly interacted with you on this one post in this thread that's a pretty quick judgement about me listening to you or not.
Of course, you haven't actually bothered to listen to me or anyone else in this thread, so we'll call it even. Nowhere did I suggest all Christians are frothing at the mouth anti-Semites, for example. Most of the Christians I know are nice people.

Make sure you listen to the end when chides the interviewer for making assumptions about the character of American Evangelicals. It's so funny to hear you people say you understand Christian doctrine so well and subsequently demonstrate a complete misunderstanding.

What specifically do you feel I misunderstood? You yourself agreed many medieval Christians were anti-Semitic. I pointed to a specific type of anti-Semitic accusation in Medieval Europe, which was clearly based on the Gospel accounts of who is responsible for the death of Jesus and so far nothing you've said has actually challenged that point.

YesNo

03-26-2012, 07:51 AM

Is it true that the medieval Christian Church was anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Is it true that the Gospels or most modern Christian churches are anti-Semitic? Absolutely NOT.
I think this is the main issue of this thread.

Admittedly, there has been Christian antisemitism in the past. Ironically, the antisemitism that Christians practiced in the past justifies anti-Christian positions today. If antisemitism can be found within the canonical texts of Christianity, that would discredit Christianity in a deep way and legitimate current anti-Christian positions.

Here is a Wikipedia summary of the issue of antisemitism in the New Testament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

Edit: To take one text from this summary, called the "blood guilt" passage, consider Matthew 27:24-25 (New International Version):

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

BienvenuJDC

03-26-2012, 09:14 AM

JCamilo

03-26-2012, 09:19 AM

Only a serious scholar of Dante, like you J, is able to discern the true Hitlerian meaning of the Christian Gospels. Of course, I'm sure everyone is, as I am, eagerly wondering what Borges thought of all this. Thoughts?

Borges had an enormous sympathy for jews, even considered himself one of them. He was however, very found of gnostic ideas, way before the modern explotation of Judas by the best-seller industry he was already fascinated by his part in the drama.

But that has nothing to do with Hitlerian or nazism. It has to do with the historical context of the region when the texts are written and that will be present in the text. There was a rupture between Jews (specifically the rulling religous power) and Christians, they became rivals, the rupture was of course not the nicest thing, and this show up in the texts. At the sametime, everyone get well aware of Rome will to take down any possible petty-internal fighting, so it is only more natural that survivors were less radical towards rome. Was it an elaborated conspiracy to justify jewish persecution? No. Just like it wasn't a text for a world wide religion backed up by Roman power and this happened anyways since it was possible to find sympathy for Pilatos in the text.

Are both interpretations superficial? Sure, but how many people in 2000 years were trainned to read otherwise? As much the rupture happened, the gospels were filled with hebrew literary style, which are not easy to be understood and usually have multiple meanings. No wonder, a jew like Dkr finds, i suppose with irony, strange how a bunch of western christians are giving modern western interpretations of of those texts as undeniable facts (you don't use the word, but we all know you define reality from yourself) if they barelly have any understandment of jewish culture, specially from 1st century.

Of course, Borges said we create our precussors, so you can certainly create our John as you want.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 09:19 AM

Of course, I'm a history minor. But, nevertheless, this is a red herring that has no real bearing on any argument I made. My argument was in the medieval period one major version of anti-Semitism was the accusation of Deicide, which was based on the fact that the Christians at the time believed the Jews killed Jesus as written in the Gospels. Anyone who has studied the history of anti-Semitism or general medieval history would know that. This is an historical fact. Saying that the oppressors adopted the religion doesn't challenge that point. Not to mention medieval history implies a period long after the Roman Empire fell.

It's apparent that you were trying to establish some causal relationship with the Gospels and the historical hardships suffered by Jews, and, in doing so, you end up mistaking correlation with causation. What you're saying is about as sensible as someone saying that the Gospels or even democracy were responsible for the Iraq War simply because Bush's justifications of said war were clothed in Christian and democratic language.

I realize you quoted this point practically verbatim from Chomsky’s video.

Yeah, and thanks for the wikipedia article, Mr. history minor.

Chomsky presents a history where Christianity was the religion of pacifist victims, but then became the religion of the Oppressors (the rich and powerful) when Rome adopted it. While not untrue exactly, it is certainly a superficial understanding of history, which is ironic given his comments at the end of the video talking about how the world is much more complicated. To say any religion is the religion of the the downtrodden or the oppressor is a ridiculous oversimplification. Poor people in the various European countries continued to be Christians along with the rich and powerful nobility and church officials. None of this changes the fact that the anti-Semitic violence done during the Middle Ages based on the charges of Deicide stems from the Gospel accounts.

I couldn’t agree more with him that the world and history is complicated; to pretend all Christians just love their neighbors and want to begin radical political movements to liberate oppressed societies is as disingenuous as pretending all Christians are anti-Semitic racists. None of which I suggested.

Chomsky's understanding of history is hardly "superficial". The point Chomsky is making is not that until the 4th Century every Christian was swell, but rather that the character of the Gospels, being as they are radically pacifistic and fundamentally generous to the poor, is counter to the history of the Christian Church following the adoption of the religion by Constantine. According to your bizarro logic, the Gospels are responsible for the Crusades simply because there were scriptural justifications used by the Church at the time. The truth is that there can be no mechanism for compulsion within the Gospels for the Crusades or the forced conversion of Muslims during the Reconquista or the eviction of Jews from Iberia because the central ideas of the gospels are radical concern for other persons and strict prohibitions of malicious actions toward others, going so far as to state that even as the subject of abuse the Christian shouldn't resist.

If you can't understand that people have, since the beginning of Civilization, wrapped all oppression in the language of cultural currency, despite there being crucial contradictions, then you can't understand history at all. According to your goofy logic, Christian persecution of the 1st Century "is based on" or "stems from" or whatever mealy-mouthed manner you choose to avoid the issue of actual responsibility Judaism.

Because you fail to understand why demonstrating the lack of continuity in message from the Gospels to the medieval church of Europe completely sinks your argument, any argument with you is destined to be fruitless. Anti-Semitism is not original with the Gospels, which should be obvious since the Gospels were created and followed by Semitic persons. According to your non-analysis that medieval Popes had mercenary armies and vast riches all owes to the gospels, and that the US has oppressed persons from South America to Asia is all a central part of representative democracy, and that Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a on-going struggle owes strictly to religious differences.

It is an intolerable irony that you accuse me of making red herring arguments when the only reason we're discussing this is because the original poster suggested that Christ's death involved a cover up to ensure the future persecution of the Jews. You aren't at all interested in the original point, but rather you are interested in frustrating the conversation with the only one you have readily rehearsed.

What specifically do you feel I misunderstood? You yourself agreed many medieval Christians were anti-Semitic. I pointed to a specific type of anti-Semitic accusation in Medieval Europe, which was clearly based on the Gospel accounts of who is responsible for the death of Jesus and so far nothing you've said has actually challenged that point.

The better question is: what didn't you misunderstand? It has been proposed in this thread that my interpretations of the Gospels are simply revisionism, but the truth is that the revisionism occurred when Christianity became an instrument of state power. This is such a banal point, I can't even believe I'm having to make it--to someone who claims to study history no less. I mean, one of the main threads in Western history is the centuries-long struggle to wrest authority in the church from political institutions. If you can't look at the history of the Christian Church in the West post-Constantine and understand how counter it all was to the original message of the Gospels, then you can't see. You are trying to suggest a continuity stretching from the writing of the Gospels to medieval antisemitism and beyond, and frankly that continuity doesn't exist, nor is there sufficient warrant for anti-Semitism in the Gospels.

Borges had an enormous sympathy for jews, even considered himself one of them. He was however, very found of gnostic ideas, way before the modern explotation of Judas by the best-seller industry he was already fascinated by his part in the drama.

But that has nothing to do with Hitlerian or nazism. It has to do with the historical context of the region when the texts are written and that will be present in the text. There was a rupture between Jews (specifically the rulling religous power) and Christians, they became rivals, the rupture was of course not the nicest thing, and this show up in the texts. At the sametime, everyone get well aware of Rome will to take down any possible petty-internal fighting, so it is only more natural that survivors were less radical towards rome. Was it an elaborated conspiracy to justify jewish persecution? No. Just like it wasn't a text for a world wide religion backed up by Roman power and this happened anyways since it was possible to find sympathy for Pilatos in the text.

Are both interpretations superficial? Sure, but how many people in 2000 years were trainned to read otherwise? As much the rupture happened, the gospels were filled with hebrew literary style, which are not easy to be understood and usually have multiple meanings. No wonder, a jew like Dkr finds, i suppose with irony, strange how a bunch of western christians are giving modern western interpretations of of those texts as undeniable facts (you don't use the word, but we all know you define reality from yourself) if they barelly have any understandment of jewish culture, specially from 1st century.

Of course, Borges said we create our precussors, so you can certainly create our John as you want.

That you thought I was sincerely asking what Borges thought is funny.

cacian

03-26-2012, 09:26 AM

What does it matter who killed Jesus? Seriously. I don't know much about it but I always thought it was the Roman authorities and the local Jewish leadership which killed him, as it makes sense they'd both want him killed.

Isn't it faith all about understanding?

One needs to understand in order to believe?
The Bible is a book like any other literary classic books and in order to convince me it will need to go through my questions first. I am happy to oblige to any faith but they have to oblige me too. If in doubts ask and that is what I am doing...doubting thomas was one, why shouldn't I?
Call it an interview, I am entitled to it if I am to practice or preach what it says...critiques and all that stuff or isn't that what writing is all about?

JCamilo

03-26-2012, 11:27 AM

That you thought I was sincerely asking what Borges thought is funny.

:hurray:

Darcy88

03-26-2012, 01:01 PM

Isn't it faith all about understanding?

One needs to understand in order to believe?
The Bible is a book like any other literary classic books and in order to convince me it will need to go through my questions first. I am happy to oblige to any faith but they have to oblige me too. If in doubts ask and that is what I am doing...doubting thomas was one, why shouldn't I?
Call it an interview, I am entitled to it if I am to practice or preach what it says...critiques and all that stuff or isn't that what writing is all about?

You don't need to know who killed Jesus or why he was killed in order to believe in the gospels. What matters from a believer's perspective is that he died and did so for us. I mean I read a lot of Plato and a bit of the stoics and I really look up to Socrates but I don't care how or why he died. If he had died at the end of a Spartan spear rather than by being sentenced to drink hemlock it wouldn't make an iota of difference regarding how I think about him.

Jesus had to die. Its a big part of the Christian story and belief system that he died. Only a stupid Christian would become antisemitic because the Jews may have played a part in his death and I don't care about what stupid people think.

I haven't read the story (actually I may have once, not completely sure), but, in my case, there's half-remembered bits from stuff on TV, movies, internet articles/discussion, etc. And the stuff I remembered matched pretty much what you're saying--which, I think, doesn't really conflict with Darnay's posted idea at all... Unless you want to counter Darnay with some version of what "the Jews" might mean in your statement, some sense of responsibility among "the Jews" that would go significantly beyond what he suggested. But, yeah, my understanding--of the Bible's version--matches what you say. But are you convinced the Bible is accurate?

Waaa? Pilate may have been a bad guy but what does that have to do with the fact that a band of powerful Jews seeked to Kill Jesus? They got Pilate to do their dirty work. That's the facts man, accept it or not.

This revisionism of history is astounding. The Jews didn't like Christ because they thought he was coming to rescue them from the romans. You see, the Jews thought they had it in with God. But there was one little problem. God knew the Jews loved themselves more than God. Hence, to make them jealous, he spread the gospel to the gentiles.

This is the story of the Gospel, foretold in the old Testament too. God knew that the Jews would reject him and alas, they did.

This is fact man and I don't care what any person, Jew, gentile, says. If a person wants to make up stories about Christianity then let them do it among themselves, with other non-believers, whatever. It's like me telling the Jews why do you believe in one God? When the bible clearly states there is a trinity (new and old Testament). I'm not getting into all that crap though cause I realize there are many who like to start arguments for argument sake.

Right on Brother:thumbs_up

People were calling Jesus the messiah which means King. The Romans had a LOT of reason to kill Jesus. They had only really submitted that part of the world in the last generation or so. Heck I heard a Stanford scholar say that this was probably the main reason Jesus was killed. Of course the Jewish priests and leaders may have contributed but the power lay with the Romans. The Romans didn't take orders from the Jews, they simply didn't.

I am always astounded at the irrelevant retorts and half-clever rebuttals that constitute the modern atheist discourse. That it could ever be considered reasonable to confuse such an innocuous assertion as that one has no objection to the practice of interpreting scripture with another that all interpretations are valid (and, at which point, the person responding conjures up the more salacious aspects of the Pentateuch, an objection that seems to be the first and last resort among so-called New Atheists) testifies to how ridiculous this conversation is. Of course, I don't know what I expected from a post asking the Holmeslike question "who really killed Jesus?" followed by about as sophisticated an inquiry as that occurring in the average History Channel "documentary".

And regarding all this talk about the Jews.... First, Jesus was a Jew. Second, the disciples were mostly Jews. The Gospels have never been a condemnation of the Jews. It just so happens that the story takes place within a distinctly Jewish society, and what the Gospels condemn is society, itself. The point was never that the Jews murdered Jesus, but that worldly society repays kindness and honesty with murder. The fact is that Jews have been in the past, are now and will always be a part of society, and the modern notion that Jews are fundamentally good people is as idiotic as the medieval one that they are fundamentally bad. The fact is Jews are simply people, which is to say that they are, like the rest of us, fairly base creatures driven by their own desires and who, consequently, confuse propriety with morality. The Gospels do not indict the Jews, but rather us all.

The second part of this, after the angry anti-atheist rambling, is really good. Never thought I'd ever agree with you. Good stuff.

I suppose you can say that YesNo. Bare in mind though, that's like blaming the executioner for the death of a prisoner. When in reality, he was just doing his job, like the romans were doing. :p

No, no, no, no, no. The Romans did not work for the Jews. No, no a million times again no. We are talking about Rome here. A man is proclaimed King by his followers and you think the Romans were just doing a job for their Jewish bosses when they killed him? Okay then.

BienvenuJDC

03-26-2012, 01:42 PM

You don't need to know who killed Jesus or why he was killed in order to believe in the gospels. What matters from a believer's perspective is that he died and did so for us. I mean I read a lot of Plato and a bit of the stoics and I really look up to Socrates but I don't care how or why he died. If he had died at the end of a Spartan spear rather than by being sentenced to drink hemlock it wouldn't make an iota of difference regarding how I think about him.

Jesus had to die. Its a big part of the Christian story and belief system that he died. Only a stupid Christian would become antisemitic because the Jews may have played a part in his death and I don't care about what stupid people think.

Hear, hear...even the gospel was taken "to the Jew FIRST, then also the Greek (meaning Gentile...meaning anyone who wasn't a Jew....meaning everyone else)". The gospel was spread by the Jews. Why would anyone be anti-Semetic in the name of Christ? ...it's senseless...

OrphanPip

03-26-2012, 01:58 PM

Only someone suffering from a severe case of literalism could mistake my comment for an actual tally of the participants in this thread rather than a judgment about what generally goes on in this forum. The reality is that the majority of the active Christians in this forum are present in this thread and only a small portion of the atheists are. Why don't you take your abacus and start tallying some other threads? But anyway, why are there that many atheists demanding evidence for God in a religious texts forum anyway?

No, I am not suffering from a "severe case of literalism," I was using an immediate example of one such thread that fell under the category of what "generally goes on in this forum" that contradicts your generalization, and if one example contradicts your generalization it then might be reasonable to suspect that your assessment of participation in this forum was wrong in general.

But whatever, I don't think anyone has actually demanded evidence for God in this thread either. Debating the historicity of an ancient text is a perfectly reasonable debate, one that goes on around any text that old.

BienvenuJDC

03-26-2012, 02:37 PM

Well technically this thread has involved about 2 Jews, 3 atheist, 4 Christians and I'm not sure what YesNo's or JC's specific views are.

Well, technically it seems like you can't count.

AuntShecky

03-26-2012, 02:55 PM

Some opinions or beliefs about Christ's passion and death are based on Hollywood "sword and sandal" movies rather than the original source in the N.T. Different translations and editions of the New Testament might also shade interpretations.

More reading-- especially that of authors who do not take a particular position on who is guilty-- can provide a better view, perhaps. Some recent non-fiction books, as well as those from the 20th century such as The Day Christ Died by Jim Bishop might give a sense of historical perspective. Well-researched fiction can work as well. A few months ago I read the novel Man of Nazarath by Anthony Burgess, and his account seems plausible.

Even the Christian bible admits that the Romans killed Jesus. The problem with the biblical account is that it implicated the Jews in Jesus' death and that part of the story doesn't make sense to me. Why would the Jews want one of their own to be crucified even if they did not like what he said? Did they treat other members of their community in the same way? I don't think so.

I'm not really sure that all of the Jews in Judea were "implicated" in Jesus's death. Most of his disciples and followers were all Jewish. "Herod "( the king who ruled Judea at the time of Christ's birth as well as the two brothers with the same first name) had a personal issue with the title "King of the Jews" and thus saw Jesus as a threat, especially in regard to his political and social criticism --both overt (Matthew 10:34) and in his revolutionary teachings for peace.

During the last three years of Christ's life, Judea was under full Roman occupation. There was an attempt for a kind of "co-existence" in which, nominally at least, both Rome and the ruling faction of Jews would share power. Hence, the custom of liberating one Jewish prisoner during Passover
(Matthew 27: 15) brought to a head the suspicion over Jesus, which the relatively small group of political enemies of Jesus (the high priest, Caiphas and the Sanhedrin)seized as a golden opportunity. They whipped up the crowd who demanded the release of Barabbas, not Jesus.

Pilate was a butcher eager to find another example to show his power by terrorizing the populace.

Crucifixion, as barbarous as it is, was the common method of capital punishment for the Romans, and it was the system itself, rather than specific individuals who followed the law, as savage as was, who was "the Butcher." According to the New Testament accounts, Pontius Pilate--a relatively minor administrative official stationed in Jerusalem--did not want to have anything to do with intrigue among the local political factions. He just wanted to do his time and get out. The last thing he wanted to do was to stir up trouble (which would have been trouble for himself); certainly "he didn't want to terrorize the populace."

According to Matthew (27: 15-26) Pilate actually argues for the release of Jesus, stating that he has committed no crime,but seeing that "a riot was breaking out," he literally washed his hands of the whole matter. (You could make the argument that Pilate was weak and cowardly, but not overtly a butcher.)

cacian

03-26-2012, 02:56 PM

what I am not understanding in all this is that why anyone should feel annoyed about the fact that anyone is making a reference to the bible and questioning the validity and the truth behind the texts.
I think it to be healthy and intelligent to be able to question anything especially a book such as the bible in order to establish some kind authenticity to what is proposed to a believer-to-be.
Isn't it what god want us to do to show sign of being truly interested in what our faith is about and research what someone else has decided to throw at us in few pages about the past history of christianity and its prophets. It is not about believing word for word but it is about ensuring that what is in a book is not a makeup of someone's else work that it is not just a big lie. I don't that asking questions is in any way insulting or discouraging on the contrary it is for our benefit that we do so if our faith is to retain its consistancy and lasts.
I find most important that the death if Jesus is to be questioned and verified just in case Jesus was not killed by someone he knew very well and whom he more then trusted.
I think it very important because faith is enlightement and truth.
The more I research facts about Jesus and the bible the more I feel closer to whatever higher being is there.
It is not me to believe blindly and so if the bible is the truth then it should be able to stand any questions thrown at it and if it deos not then I am to conclude that it has failed miserably at keeping me interested.
What if Jesus was killed by a member of his family for example, acousin perhaps or somebody else and for other motives?
Isn't it our responsibility and part of our faith to ensure his death is what they say it was and not a waste because if it was something else then one has failed him and his religion.

Darcy88

03-26-2012, 05:13 PM

Hear, hear...even the gospel was taken "to the Jew FIRST, then also the Greek (meaning Gentile...meaning anyone who wasn't a Jew....meaning everyone else)". The gospel was spread by the Jews. Why would anyone be anti-Semetic in the name of Christ? ...it's senseless...

God spoke first to the Jews. Christ came as a Jew. And yet a lot of antisemites, including many Nazis, were nominally Christian. Its one of those great historical ironies that is at once so hilarious and so sad.

KCurtis

03-26-2012, 05:22 PM

Waaa? What book you quoting from? Charlie and Lola? Jesus was a person? His father was Joseph? Yeah so where you getting your "historical" perspective from? That's like saying, the earth was flat before it was round because people thought so. I have no idea what Jesus you are talking about. Maybe a Jesus' from Peru? LOL

I don't quite understand your post. In my presumed ignorance, I assumed everyone knew Jesus was a person and was killed by the Roman government. I'm sorry, I did not think this was a novel idea. I also did not think that the Bible was the only historical source of information.
I think I know where this is going, so I will go on to another discussion of something else, bye.

Rores28

03-26-2012, 05:25 PM

First, the poster was not saying that, in principle, all interpretations are valid, which is what you are arguing against. They were saying that their initial point wasn't to debar interpretation.

We're just going in circles here. I've already pointed out why even if the latter is true the former probably follows from it. See my earlier post.

Okay, if this is exactly what you're saying, then I'm saying you are exactly wrong. An arbiter is an authoritative judge. You are not the arbiter of "bad consequences", which is to say you do not get to decide on your own authority what constitutes "bad consequences", just as you don't get to decide on your own authority what constitutes an allowable interpretation.

I am not THE judge, but I am a judge, as is everyone. I am a sentient entity and thus have some say in whether or not an occurrence is good or bad, because I can have good or bad emotional states because of it. If there were no sentient entities good and bad would be meaningless. Likewise sentient entities have some fundamental correlates that often cause positive experiential / emotional states and often cause negative experiential /emotional states. Eating food after a day of starvation is probably tightly correlated with a positive state while having acid poured onto your kneecap is probably tightly correlated with a negative state. Thus if I make the claim that pouring acid on your kneecap would be bad, I would be deciding what constitutes bad consequences, but if you have a problem with my ability to make that claim (or the veracity of the claim or whatever) than I think you are being disingenuous.

Consider this example:
There are 10 people on the planet earth. 9 of them love the cello. They can all play but have lost their cellos and playing the cello just affords them the utmost bliss. The other person doesn’t really like the cello too much, but really likes the banjo, which the other people find irritating. You are an alien who lands on earth with the skills to construct both of these instruments but you only have time enough to make one before you have to go home and prepare your alien supper. Can you really say that you (or I) don’t have the sort of knowing that is able to claim that making a cello, rather than banjo, is a better consequence?

Of course, I would agree that some interpretations are better than others, but, then again, I rely on a transcendent mechanism called God.

You clearly think some interpretations of texts are better than others without any appeal to "a transcendent mechanism called God."

An example.

"My name is Don. I live on 235 East Chestnut Street. I am a man."

Interpretation 1: Don is a man who lives on a Street.
Extrapolations - Don has a vas deferens. Don does not have a vagina.

Interpretation 2: Don is a female lemur who lives in the jungle.
Extrapolations - Don is a cute primate who has ovaries.

You think one of those interpretations is better than the other without any appeal to "a transcendent mechanism called God," and I think I can guess which one.

And if you try to impeach my transcendent mechanism, I would ask "on what authority?" Perhaps you would say reason. Perhaps you would say science. But neither reason nor science recommend themselves. In fact, the only self-justifying mechanism I know of is God. He is the unmoved mover.

I could just as easily claim that reason is a transcendent mechanism, some deeper thread which permeates all reality, like some people claim for “information” etc. and we’d be a standstill.
Further your ability to understand and call forth God as a transcendent mechanism is backed by reason. You used some degree of reason to come to this conclusion, whether it was the reason that people you trusted told you about and hold this view, or the reason used to come to conclusions about the historical accuracy of the bible, or the reason it took to connect a transcendent experience you’ve had with the existence of God etc.

You don't get to make demands about what people are allowed to interpret unless you have some ironclad, objective reason for it.
Do you have such a reason?

Again, I have not said that people should be disallowed to interpret a text. This seems to imply some sort of legal intervention or something. But I will oppose interpretations of texts that result in bad consequences, and I think that we all should.
One can’t make demands without an ironclad objective reason? That seems pretty unrealistic, mostly the ironclad part.

Drkshadow03

03-26-2012, 05:39 PM

It's apparent that you were trying to establish some causal relationship with the Gospels and the historical hardships suffered by Jews, and, in doing so, you end up mistaking correlation with causation. What you're saying is about as sensible as someone saying that the Gospels or even democracy were responsible for the Iraq War simply because Bush's justifications of said war were clothed in Christian and democratic language.

Anyone with basic common sense can figure out the causal relationship. Book says Jews killed Jesus and that Jesus was God. The people in actual history reading the same book kill Jews on the grounds of Deicide (which means they are accusing them of killing god). Where did the idea that they killed God come from? The answer is pretty obvious. The fact that you personally can't figure that out speaks volumes about how seriously we should take the rest of your "argument."

Your analogy is faulty. There is a world of difference between Bush going to war for other reasons and clothing it in Christian and democratic language and Christians killing Jews due to accusations of Deicide found directly in the Gospels.

Yeah, and thanks for the wikipedia article, Mr. history minor.

Would you have preferred I cited some book or article that nobody would have access to?

Chomsky's understanding of history is hardly "superficial". The point Chomsky is making is not that until the 4th Century every Christian was swell, but rather that the character of the Gospels, being as they are radically pacifistic and fundamentally generous to the poor, is counter to the history of the Christian Church following the adoption of the religion by Constantine.

The Gospels contain radical ideas for the time sure, but they also contain clearly problematic ideas that led to the direction the Christian Church ultimately took for thousands of years. Presenting it merely as a situation of power corrupts is a little misguided when there is such an obvious and distinct causal relationship from the books to the actions themselves. More importantly even if you're point were correct, which it's not, this doesn't exonerate Christianity, but rather just the book itself.

According to your bizarro logic, the Gospels are responsible for the Crusades simply because there were scriptural justifications used by the Church at the time.

My logic was fine; yours on the other hand seems to be fond of fallacies, and a desperate desire to puncture the boundaries of basic reasoning, and a penchant for conversing with phantom arguments born from your own imagination. You're attacking a Strawman. Implying that in the instance of anti-Semitism in which the specific charge of Deicide is involved has its origins in the Gospel, which it obviously does, doesn't mean I consider all anti-Semitism or all actions to stem from such. The Church institution can be responsible for the Crusades.

The truth is that there can be no mechanism for compulsion within the Gospels for the Crusades or the forced conversion of Muslims during the Reconquista or the eviction of Jews from Iberia because the central ideas of the gospels are radical concern for other persons and strict prohibitions of malicious actions toward others, going so far as to state that even as the subject of abuse the Christian shouldn't resist.

If you're so keen on turning the other cheek and accepting abuse then it shouldn't bother you what I have to say about your religion. and yet it clearly does.

Because you fail to understand why demonstrating the lack of continuity in message from the Gospels to the medieval church of Europe completely sinks your argument, any argument with you is destined to be fruitless.

I didn't fail to understand; you failed to make a convincing and coherent argument that disproved my point. And even, though, as you stated the argument will continue to be fruitless I have absolutely no doubt you'll have some long-winded response to share nevertheless.

Anti-Semitism is not original with the Gospels, which should be obvious since the Gospels were created and followed by Semitic persons. According to your non-analysis that medieval Popes had mercenary armies and vast riches all owes to the gospels, and that the US has oppressed persons from South America to Asia is all a central part of representative democracy, and that Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a on-going struggle owes strictly to religious differences.

Ah, slippery-slopes. I said none of this, implied none of this, completely contradicts what I think on any of those specific conflicts/historical instances. I didn't say ALL anti-Semitism stems from the Gospels or even all Christian anti-Semitism stems from the Gospels, just the specific charge of Deicide.

It is an intolerable irony that you accuse me of making red herring arguments when the only reason we're discussing this is because the original poster suggested that Christ's death involved a cover up to ensure the future persecution of the Jews. You aren't at all interested in the original point, but rather you are interested in frustrating the conversation with the only one you have readily rehearsed.

I already addressed the original post in the first post in this thread, which you're free to look at if you like. Conversations shift in a long thread.

The better question is: what didn't you misunderstand? It has been proposed in this thread that my interpretations of the Gospels are simply revisionism, but the truth is that the revisionism occurred when Christianity became an instrument of state power.

Way to respond with a rhetorical technique and not tackle anything specific. I actually liked your interesting interpretation of the Gospels with the Jews merely being responsible (as symbolically representing all of humanity since all are sinful) because they're part of the cultural background. I thought it was unique and insightful. It was just all the other stuff you had to say after that.

YesNo

03-26-2012, 05:53 PM

I'm not really sure that all of the Jews in Judea were "implicated" in Jesus's death. Most of his disciples and followers were all Jewish. "Herod "( the king who ruled Judea at the time of Christ's birth as well as the two brothers with the same first name) had a personal issue with the title "King of the Jews" and thus saw Jesus as a threat, especially in regard to his political and social criticism --both overt (Matthew 10:34) and in his revolutionary teachings for peace.

During the last three years of Christ's life, Judea was under full Roman occupation. There was an attempt for a kind of "co-existence" in which, nominally at least, both Rome and the ruling faction of Jews would share power. Hence, the custom of liberating one Jewish prisoner during Passover
(Matthew 27: 15) brought to a head the suspicion over Jesus, which the relatively small group of political enemies of Jesus (the high priest, Caiphas and the Sanhedrin)seized as a golden opportunity. They whipped up the crowd who demanded the release of Barabbas, not Jesus.

Crucifixion, as barbarous as it is, was the common method of capital punishment for the Romans, and it was the system itself, rather than specific individuals who followed the law, as savage as was, who was "the Butcher." According to the New Testament accounts, Pontius Pilate--a relatively minor administrative official stationed in Jerusalem--did not want to have anything to do with intrigue among the local political factions. He just wanted to do his time and get out. The last thing he wanted to do was to stir up trouble (which would have been trouble for himself); certainly "he didn't want to terrorize the populace."

According to Matthew (27: 15-26) Pilate actually argues for the release of Jesus, stating that he has committed no crime,but seeing that "a riot was breaking out," he literally washed his hands of the whole matter. (You could make the argument that Pilate was weak and cowardly, but not overtly a butcher.)
Thanks for the response, AuntShecky.

I agree with the idea that the Jewish people were not all implicated in Jesus' death. If there were any Jewish involvement, it would have been by only a few with some power. If that is the case, what is the origin of antisemitism? Can antisemitism be traced all the way back to the Gospels? If not what is a reasonable origin?

You may also be right about Pilate not wanting to cause himself too much trouble with these executions. However, it would have been easier to behead Jesus rather than crucify him. Why didn't he do that and save himself some trouble?

I was thinking about Matthew 27:25 today called the "blood guilt" verse: “His blood is on us and on our children!” Just before that Pilate is described as washing his hands of the affair. The question that keeps coming to me is whether any of that even happened.

It makes more sense to me to imagine that this crucifixion was all Pilate's doing without any Jewish involvement whatsoever. When Pilate heard that the crowds cheered Jesus a few days previously, he decided to get rid of the troublemaker. To show the people that he held the power, not they, he had Jesus publicly crucified. I don't see why any Jewish opponent would have wanted that for Jesus since it would most likely be perceived as an attack on the entire Jewish community including Jesus' opponents.

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 05:57 PM

Thanks for the response, AuntShecky.

I agree with the idea that the Jewish people were not all implicated in Jesus' death. If there were any Jewish involvement, it would have been by only a few with some power. If that is the case, what is the origin of antisemitism? Can antisemitism be traced all the way back to the Gospels? If not what is a reasonable origin?

You may also be right about Pilate not wanting to cause himself too much trouble with these executions. However, it would have been easier to behead Jesus rather than crucify him. Why didn't he do that and save himself some trouble?

I was thinking about Matthew 27:25 today called the "blood guilt" verse: “His blood is on us and on our children!” Just before that Pilate is described as washing his hands of the affair. The question that keeps coming to me is whether any of that even happened.

It makes more sense to me to imagine that this crucifixion was all Pilate's doing without any Jewish involvement whatsoever. When Pilate heard that the crowds cheered Jesus a few days previously, he decided to get rid of the troublemaker. To show the people that he held the power, not they, he had Jesus publicly crucified. I don't see why any Jewish opponent would have wanted that for Jesus since it would most likely be perceived as an attack on the entire Jewish community including Jesus' opponents.

The origin of the particular type of antisemitism being referred to in this thread, but by no means is Christianity responsible for all antisemitism, is scriptural interpretations by men such as John of Chrysostom. Just read his work, you'll see.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 05:59 PM

The second part of this, after the angry anti-atheist rambling, is really good. Never thought I'd ever agree with you. Good stuff.

The irony, of course, is the part you're referring to is precisely the part someone took issue with. To paraphrase: I was only able to see him through the prism of Christianity and was just congratulating myself in that passage. You see, Darcy, it doesn't matter what I say.

I read an article a couple years back about the faults of Wikipedia, and the main thrust of the article was that no matter how expert a person contributed to a particular article, his work was guaranteed to be edited out within a matter of days, very often by persons less knowledgeable. What's so frustrating about the conversations occurring in this forum is that the content of a post is really incidental to another person's response. For most persons, ideas are merely badges of association. The red state/blue state phenomenon in the US political landscape isn't an accident of self-organization. Most persons adopt the ideas in their cultural surroundings because it is socially expedient to do so. And any disagreement is an attack on someone else's identity. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter how good or bad my post is; as soon as it categorized as roughly Christian, I will be subjected to the same litany of cliched retorts--even if they are evidently ridiculous.

Consider this: someone makes the asinine assertion that the death of Jesus was a big scam designed to ensure persecution of the Jews throughout all of history, and no one really cares. Most persons in this forum identify with a multicultural/anti-Eurocentric viewpoint, and even if someone says something ludicrous, but roughly in line with this viewpoint, no one cares. If, however, you correct such a ridiculous statement and reveal yourself as the "the other", you will, as I was, be subjected to a deluge of ridiculous criticisms. Saying that, no, Jesus' death wasn't a big scam leads to accusation of anti-Semitism and a discussion of how anti-Semitism is inherent in the Christian Gospels. Another person says he's not opposed to interpreting the Bible, and someone immediately starts suggesting that loose interpretations of the Bible can lead to murdered babies and other atrocities. This is not a reasonable discussion. Most of the participants are not what is called "persuadable". The arguments generally have nothing to do with content of the posts; it's just that apparently some persons are sworn to argue to the death whenever encountering a Christian.

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 06:06 PM

The irony, of course, is the part you're referring to is precisely the part someone took issue with. To paraphrase: I was only able to see him through the prism of Christianity and was just congratulating myself in that passage. You see, Darcy, it doesn't matter what I say.

The fact that Darcy liked a certain post of yours that I took issue with only demonstrates that people have differing opinions - not that you will be attacked for anything that you right for the sake of being attacked. Just as there are some of your posts on this thread that I agree with (and like) and some that I don't.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-26-2012, 06:14 PM

The arguments generally have nothing to do with content of the posts; it's just that apparently some persons are sworn to argue to the death whenever encountering a Christian.

You do realize some persons are also sworn to argue to the death with atheists of encountering one, no?

You know, you can complain all you want about this forum being unfair and bullying to Christians all you want. I'll even go so far as to agree that, yes, Christians are outnumbered here by atheists on occasion. But what're you gonna do about it? That's just the way this forum is. You're not going to chane it by continuously ranting about it. So, you can just deal with it, keep complaining about it (which will do nothing but illustrate and exasperate the supposed Christian/atheist divide that so plagues this forum), or leave.

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 06:19 PM

You do realize some persons are also sworn to argue to the death with atheists of encountering one, no?

You know, you can complain all you want about this forum being unfair and bullying to Christians all you want. I'll even go so far as to agree that, yes, Christians are outnumbered here by atheists on occasion. But what're you gonna do about it? That's just the way this forum is. You're not going to chane it by continuously ranting about it. So, you can just deal with it, keep complaining about it (which will do nothing but illustrate and exasperate the supposed Christian/atheist divide that so plagues this forum), or leave.

Add to that the fact that the religious debates - primarily debates about Christianity - on this forum are really the only ones that inspire the type of contention - there have been others from time to time but certainly not as much. It's hard to argue so vehemently about whether Pride and Prejudice is a good book or not.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 06:36 PM

Anyone with basic common sense can figure out the causal relationship. Book says Jews killed Jesus and that Jesus was God. The people in actual history reading the same book kill Jews on the grounds of Deicide (which means they are accusing them of killing god). Where did the idea that they killed God come from? The answer is pretty obvious. The fact that you personally can't figure that out speaks volumes about how seriously we should take the rest of your "argument."

Since you seem so totally confident in your reasoning skills and so suspicious of mine, I'm going to ask you to demonstrate the superiority. Really, I doubt you could identify a syllogism. Let's say, for instance, we accept your questionable premise that "The Jews killed Jesus." We also have your conclusion "Therefore, we should persecute the Jews." Let's use the Christian Gospels as a source and find a reasonably concluding intermediate premise.

1. The Jews killed Jesus.
2. ?
----------
3. Therefore we should persecute the Jews.

Hmm, how about....

2. Love thine enemy.

Not going to work.

2. Turn the other cheek.

Not going to work.

2. Pray for those who persecute you.

Not going to work.

2. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.

Not going to work.

Of course, you could try adding in something like:

2. His blood be on us and our children.

But no conclusion follows. You can't reasonably deduce any course of action. In fact, there are scores of prohibitions that make your conclusion impossible if we're working from the Gospels.

2. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Of course, from the Torah we can make any number of fun syllogisms. Consider: Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."

1. Anyone guilty of blasphemy should be put to death.
2. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy.
-------
3. Therefore, Jesus should have been put to death.

Is this particularly helpful? Not really. But it does adequately demonstrate what is required to form a reasonable conclusion from a text. In the Torah, there are plenty of directives to execute and persecute, and so its fairly easy to derive some startling conclusions. In fact, most criticisms of Christianity deal with the Torah simply because the Gospels are, insofar as they recommend hostile action) fairly unimpeachable.

I don't think your problem is so much with scriptures as it is with proper deduction.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-26-2012, 06:47 PM

Add to that the fact that the religious debates - primarily debates about Christianity - on this forum are really the only ones that inspire the type of contention - there have been others from time to time but certainly not as much. It's hard to argue so vehemently about whether Pride and Prejudice is a good book or not.

Plus, even when we do get into contentious debates on religion, we all seem to treat each other amiably in other discussions . . . it doesn't really seem to bleed over into another thread. Unless someone like stuntpickle who has to bring up petty remarks that happened months ago feels the need to stir the pot.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 06:49 PM

The origin of the particular type of antisemitism being referred to in this thread, but by no means is Christianity responsible for all antisemitism, is scriptural interpretations by men such as John of Chrysostom. Just read his work, you'll see.

But the accusation that has been made, perhaps not by you, that the Christian Gospels are responsible for historical anti-Semitism.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 06:52 PM

Plus, even when we do get into contentious debates on religion, we all seem to treat each other amiably in other discussions . . . it doesn't really seem to bleed over into another thread. Unless someone like stuntpickle who has to bring up petty remarks that happened months ago feels the need to stir the pot.

Yeah, your mention of my petty remarks sure was high-minded. Do you mind if I bask a moment in your righteousness?

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-26-2012, 06:56 PM

Do you mind if I bask a moment in your righteousness?

Go right ahead. That's what it's there for.

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 07:00 PM

But the accusation that has been made, perhaps not by you, that the Christian Gospels are responsible for historical anti-Semitism.

I'm sure it has - I personally don't agree with it, but can only speak for myself.

OrphanPip

03-26-2012, 07:36 PM

Well, technically it seems like you can't count.

Well I did a more detailed tally, since that was just a random guess after skimming the thread and excluding short single post. These are those who had posted in the thread up to the point I posted my numbers. Stars signify 2 or less posts.

Cacian ?
YesNo ?
Bien C
MM A
Charles J/?
Bad C
Bill A *
Rores A
Shadow C
Stunt C
Drk J
Caf ? *
JC ? *
Wyatt ? *
Mortal ? *
KC A *

Since my post I guess you could count myself, one more atheist. Then there's Aunty and Darcy, neither of whom are atheist as far as I know.

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 08:06 PM

Charles J/?

/awesome, I think :)

Seriously I don't know what you're fishing for.

OrphanPip

03-26-2012, 08:15 PM

/awesome, I think :)

Seriously I don't know what you're fishing for.

I wasn't sure if you were culturally Jewish or if you were a believer.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 08:26 PM

We're just going in circles here. I've already pointed out why even if the latter is true the former probably follows from it. See my earlier post.

I am not THE judge, but I am a judge, as is everyone. I am a sentient entity and thus have some say in whether or not an occurrence is good or bad, because I can have good or bad emotional states because of it. If there were no sentient entities good and bad would be meaningless. Likewise sentient entities have some fundamental correlates that often cause positive experiential / emotional states and often cause negative experiential /emotional states. Eating food after a day of starvation is probably tightly correlated with a positive state while having acid poured onto your kneecap is probably tightly correlated with a negative state. Thus if I make the claim that pouring acid on your kneecap would be bad, I would be deciding what constitutes bad consequences, but if you have a problem with my ability to make that claim (or the veracity of the claim or whatever) than I think you are being disingenuous.

Look, Rores, with all due respect, I think the reason we're talking in circles is because you're simply not persuadable or perhaps lack the background to properly evaluate what I'm saying. The section above is not only vague but fundamentally flawed. That it is flawed isn't my opinion or some apologist's trick, but rather an evident characteristic that is easily demonstrated with certainty.

When you suggest that the goodness of something is determined by the state it puts you in, you are violating the law of identity, which is a logical absolute. We need only show one instance where they are not the same to thoroughly defeat this argument. Consider something like tough love. Is it good to discipline children even though it puts them in a "negative state?" Is it good to intervene in the life of a heroin addict even though it puts them in a "negative state." Is it good to hammer nails into a masochist's leg because it puts him in a "positive state?"

Look, I didn't figure all this out because I'm so smart. What you're proposing is utilitarian morality, which has been thoroughly refuted. Ditto all this for the cello example

You clearly think some interpretations of texts are better than others without any appeal to "a transcendent mechanism called God."

An example.

"My name is Don. I live on 235 East Chestnut Street. I am a man."

Interpretation 1: Don is a man who lives on a Street.
Extrapolations - Don has a vas deferens. Don does not have a vagina.

Interpretation 2: Don is a female lemur who lives in the jungle.
Extrapolations - Don is a cute primate who has ovaries.

You think one of those interpretations is better than the other without any appeal to "a transcendent mechanism called God," and I think I can guess which one.

I don't think you quite understand the role of transcendent authority. I'm not saying that being able to discern truth depends upon whether one believes in a God; I'm saying that, for an intelligible universe to exist, there must be a transcendent mover. Just because you don't believe in or care about God doesn't mean you can't reap the benefits of intelligibility He confers.

Look, there are two possibilities. Either the series of consequential causes stretches back in time forever, resulting in the irrationality of a practical infinity, or one of the causes must not, itself, require a cause.

There are serious problems of induction with any sort of rational worldview. You cannot literally make a deduction about the nature of a man without knowledge of all men, and because every last person is limited in his knowledge of men to some insignificant portion, then any statements about men one might make are necessarily inductive. It might be true that our current definition of male precludes Don from having a vagina and, thus, providing us a fairly good analytic statement about the lack, but there's no good rational reason why men could not start having vaginae tomorrow. There's no good reason to assume the uniformity of nature and natural laws. The only reason we think the moon isn't made of cheese is because it wasn't cheese yesterday or the day before. Of course, our knowledge of the moon's existence is fairly limited. In fact, we might just be inhabiting one of many cycles in the universe and might very well tomorrow enter the cycle of cheese.

How do you rationally escape this labyrinth? Although he wasn't explicitly interested in induction, Descartes began his escape with "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't actually escape the labyrinth until he arrived at a God who ensured the intelligibility of the universe.

If you want to test reason in a vacuum, just try to justify it with reason. It's impossible. There's no rational reason we should use reason.

Everything you experience in the world is phenomena. Don and vaginae may not even exist at all. There's no reason I can't rightly interpret the statement to mean that Don is a lemur who lives in the jungle unless there is an objective reality confirmed by a transcendent authority.

So where do you get off by trying to police how someone pursues this very authority when you don't, yourself, acknowledge it?

But all this is stupid and pointless because all you were doing was giving someone a hard time for no reason. It's as if he said "I have no problem with hamburgers," and you responded "What if the hamburger is infected with salmonella?" You can nitpick any statement in the same manner. Come on, man! Give me a break!

ShadowsCool

03-26-2012, 08:29 PM

No, no, no, no, no. The Romans did not work for the Jews. No, no a million times again no. We are talking about Rome here. A man is proclaimed King by his followers and you think the Romans were just doing a job for their Jewish bosses when they killed him? Okay then.

I never really said, the Romans worked for the Jews, rather the other way around. So I was a little surprised in seeing your rebuttal. If you look at my quote, I was answering a response. You would have to look at the full response to see the context. Not a big deal.

Jesus was a thorn in the side of the Jewish leaders of the time. Also in some sense, he was a threat to the Roman leaders. So in a sense you can say it's a shared responsibility on who's to blame. Depends on how you look at it. But the bottom line is the gospels really blame it on mankind as a whole. An indictment of man in general.

stuntpickle

03-26-2012, 08:59 PM

You do realize some persons are also sworn to argue to the death with atheists of encountering one, no?

It's not argumentation I have a problem with; it's that fairly often the arguments don't follow a coherent thread and seem mostly to be randomly generated complications. So some guy cites some totally bogus standard for historicity and, when corrected, gives me the bird and storms off in a huff. Some other guy says all this outrageous stuff about Jesus' death being a big cover up, and no one bats an eyelash, but when I correct him, I'm accused of being subtly anti-Semitic and tasked with proving how the Gospels didn't lead to the Holocaust.

Rores28

03-26-2012, 09:43 PM

Look, Rores, with all due respect, I think the reason we're talking in circles is because you're simply not persuadable or perhaps lack the background to properly evaluate what I'm saying. The section above is not only vague but fundamentally flawed. That it is flawed isn't my opinion or some apologist's trick, but rather an evident characteristic that is easily demonstrated with certainty.

When you suggest that the goodness of something is determined by the state it puts you in, you are violating the law of identity, which is a logical absolute. We need only show one instance where they are not the same to thoroughly defeat this argument. Consider something like tough love. Is it good to discipline children even though it puts them in a "negative state?" Is it good to intervene in the life of a heroin addict even though it puts them in a "negative state." Is it good to hammer nails into a masochist's leg because it puts him in a "positive state?"

Look, I didn't figure all this out because I'm so smart. What you're proposing is utilitarian morality, which has been thoroughly refuted. Ditto all this for the cello example

This is just a short sighted and specious view of a utilitarian principle.

Is it good to give kids tough love because it temporarily puts them into a negative state but will pay dividends later and thus outweigh the negative emotional state with future positive states. Yes

Is it good to intervene in the life of a heroine addict if it temporarily puts them into a negative state, but results in greater positive emotion than they otherwise would have had throughout life.... Yes

Is it good to intervene if it will just lead to more suffering for them..... No

Is it good to jam nails into a masochists leg if they like it.... Yes, the masochist would agree

This might be better stated as the net emotional state of all sentient entities throughout time. This is what matters. Of course on a practical level we only have so much predictive power, but certainly this should be the goal.

I don't think you quite understand the role of transcendent authority. I'm not saying that being able to discern truth depends upon whether one believes in a God; I'm saying that, for an intelligible universe to exist, there must be a transcendent mover. Just because you don't believe in or care about God doesn't mean you can't reap the benefits of intelligibility He confers.

Again I still can merely claim reason as such an intelligibility granting device as you merely claim God as one.

Look, there are two possibilities. Either the series of consequential causes stretches back in time forever, resulting in the irrationality of a practical infinity, or one of the causes must not, itself, require a cause.

Yes I'm familiar with this age old problem. The difference is that you invoke a super or all-powerful architect to explain it, where I find one to be unnecessary, especially when one says that it is a specific architect out of thousands of such possibilities.

There are serious problems of induction with any sort of rational worldview. You cannot literally make a deduction about the nature of a man without knowledge of all men, and because every last person is limited in his knowledge of men to some insignificant portion, then any statements about men one might make are necessarily inductive. It might be true that our current definition of male precludes Don from having a vagina and, thus, providing us a fairly good analytic statement about the lack, but there's no good rational reason why men could not start having vaginae tomorrow. There's no good reason to assume the uniformity of nature and natural laws. The only reason we think the moon isn't made of cheese is because it wasn't cheese yesterday or the day before. Of course, our knowledge of the moon's existence is fairly limited. In fact, we might just be inhabiting one of many cycles in the universe and might very well tomorrow enter the cycle of cheese.

How do you rationally escape this labyrinth? Although he wasn't explicitly interested in induction, Descartes began his escape with "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't actually escape the labyrinth until he arrived at a God who ensured the intelligibility of the universe.

If you want to test reason in a vacuum, just try to justify it with reason. It's impossible. There's no rational reason we should use reason.

Everything you experience in the world is phenomena. Don and vaginae may not even exist at all. There's no reason I can't rightly interpret the statement to mean that Don is a lemur who lives in the jungle unless there is an objective reality confirmed by a transcendent authority.

Yes I'm familiar with the "problem of induction" also.

There is much linguistic and philosophical pirouetting in such labyrinthian discussions which is why I prefer to discuss them in terms of more concrete examples. By you estimation then, if it could be proven unequivocally to you that there was no transcendent authority/God/Creator, you would find both interpretations about Don equally valid/convincing.

I find it unbelievable that you could hold this view.

Give me a break!

You will get no breaks :p

*I'll address the reason for reason possibly tomorrow when I have more time*

YesNo

03-26-2012, 10:00 PM

The origin of the particular type of antisemitism being referred to in this thread, but by no means is Christianity responsible for all antisemitism, is scriptural interpretations by men such as John of Chrysostom. Just read his work, you'll see.
I see from searching Chrysostom that he wrote a lot of sermons. Do you have any specific sermon in mind?

Apparently there is also the idea of "anti-Judaism" which is different from "antisemitism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

Charles Darnay

03-26-2012, 10:35 PM

http://holywar.org/txt/chrysostom.html

Some of this is disturbingly like Hitler's writing.

Drkshadow03

03-26-2012, 10:49 PM

The origin of the particular type of antisemitism being referred to in this thread, but by no means is Christianity responsible for all antisemitism, is scriptural interpretations by men such as John of Chrysostom. Just read his work, you'll see.

I don't think anyone is arguing Christianity is responsible for all anti-Semitism. I'm certainly not. My position is the particular accusation of Deicide has its roots in the Gospels, particularly in the way it portrays the Roman authorities, Pilate, as washing his hands of the death and the Jews as basically demanding it. Most scholarly books on the history of anti-Semitism and its causes usually note this fact. Not to mention as already noted it's pretty much a common sense causality. This, of course, doesn't mean every Christian automatically interprets the Gospels that way or the Gospels don't contain some fairly radical statements in other ways.

BienvenuJDC

03-27-2012, 12:15 AM

Well I did a more detailed tally, since that was just a random guess after skimming the thread and excluding short single post. These are those who had posted in the thread up to the point I posted my numbers. Stars signify 2 or less posts.

Cacian ?
YesNo ?
Bien C
MM A
Charles J/?
Bad C
Bill A *
Rores A
Shadow C
Stunt C
Drk J
Caf ? *
JC ? *
Wyatt ? *
Mortal ? *
KC A *

Since my post I guess you could count myself, one more atheist. Then there's Aunty and Darcy, neither of whom are atheist as far as I know.

Seriously???? You can't determine if the MANY "?" are ATHEIST? Nevermind...it isn't your counting that is in question, it's your ability to make a reasonable deduction.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 12:41 AM

This is just a short sighted and specious view of a utilitarian principle.

Is it good to give kids tough love because it temporarily puts them into a negative state but will pay dividends later and thus outweigh the negative emotional state with future positive states. Yes

Is it good to intervene in the life of a heroine addict if it temporarily puts them into a negative state, but results in greater positive emotion than they otherwise would have had throughout life.... Yes

Is it good to intervene if it will just lead to more suffering for them..... No

Is it good to jam nails into a masochists leg if they like it.... Yes, the masochist would agree

This is ridiculous. You make all sorts of assumptions about psychology and biology that can produce absurd conclusions. So Armin Meiwes can morally kill persons and eat them as long as they want to be killed and eaten.

If there can exist any possible world in which the most positive states are achieved through sadism, then your utilitarian morality becomes one promoting sadism. Of course, a world inhabited exclusively by sadists is a possible world. Virtually no one would certify universal sadism as being possibly moral. A serial killer can kill you and achieve a positive state that cancels out your negative one, resulting in a moral wash. If three people want to kill a fourth and three positive states can be achieved, then murder is moral. This is precisely the sort of intellectual garbage Stalin used to justify all his murders. There's a reason only a couple of academics are trying to rescue this hedonistic balderdash from the ravages of 20th Century criticism.

Oh, and by the way, utilitarian morality puts me in a negative state, so I can conclusively say it's immoral.

Again I still can merely claim reason as such an intelligibility granting device as you merely claim God as one.

Except that reason can't recommend itself, despite what your Philosophy in Thirty Minutes handbooks tell you.

Yes I'm familiar with this age old problem. The difference is that you invoke a super or all-powerful architect to explain it, where I find one to be unnecessary, especially when one says that it is a specific architect out of thousands of such possibilities.

The cosmological argument requires an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, personal mechanism. So either you don't understand this, or you're an atheist who believes in an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, personal mechanism for the creation of the universe, which is no atheist at all.

Yes I'm familiar with the "problem of induction" also.

There is much linguistic and philosophical pirouetting in such labyrinthian discussions which is why I prefer to discuss them in terms of more concrete examples. By you estimation then, if it could be proven unequivocally to you that there was no transcendent authority/God/Creator, you would find both interpretations about Don equally valid/convincing.

I find it unbelievable that you could hold this view.

You find it hard to believe because you are not aware of all the philosophical problems at hand. By the way, no one cares what you prefer. When we are engaged in discussions of principle, you don't get to exclusively examine individual situations. You have to, at some point, engage in generally binding statements of truth; otherwise, you're relegated to the most impotent subjectivism in which all interpretations are valid.

You will get no breaks :p

Funny that you completely ignore the part where I call attention to how all this is irrelevant to your juvenile attempts to frustrate the conversation with unreasonable nitpicking. I will get no breaks? What if I break my leg? Isn't that consistent with your criticism?

*I'll address the reason for reason possibly tomorrow when I have more time*

Yeah, when you finish, perhaps they'll give you a Nobel. Then maybe you can start on nuclear fusion. Of course, if it doesn't work out, you could try reading about Godel instead.

"In your last letter you asked the weighty question, whether I believe that we shall meet again in an afterlife. About this, I can only say the following: If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing. For what sense would there be in creating a being, which has such a wide realm of possibilities for its own development and for relationships to others, and then not allowing it to realize even a thousandth of those? That would be almost like someone laying, with the greatest effort and expense, the foundations for a house, and then letting it all go to seed again."

--Kurt Godel

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 12:49 AM

Not to mention as already noted it's pretty much a common sense causality.

Uh, no, it's an is/ought fallacy. I went to great lengths to demonstrate this to you, but apparently you're just incapable of understanding.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 12:53 AM

Seriously???? You can't determine if the MANY "?" are ATHEIST? Nevermind...it isn't your counting that is in question, it's your ability to make a reasonable deduction.

So, what, anyone who doesn't espouse christianity on a regular basis can only be atheists? Not agnostics or just apathetica, but full-blown atheists? Honestly, why are you even jumping on Pip for such an innocuous claim?

YesNo

03-27-2012, 12:58 AM

http://holywar.org/txt/chrysostom.html

Some of this is disturbingly like Hitler's writing.
Here's a quote from the first homily:

From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold.

This was written around 400 CE, so the antisemitism goes back that far. I don't really know what the difference is between anti-Judaism and antisemitism after reading this.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 01:00 AM

So, what, anyone who doesn't espouse christianity on a regular basis can only be atheists? Not agnostics or just apathetica, but full-blown atheists? Honestly, why are you even jumping on Pip for such an innocuous claim?

Yeah, Cafolini, who thinks the Catholic Church was a leading member of the Axis powers during WWII, is probably just apathetic.

YesNo

03-27-2012, 01:12 AM

Seriously???? You can't determine if the MANY "?" are ATHEIST? Nevermind...it isn't your counting that is in question, it's your ability to make a reasonable deduction.
I'm on the list with a "?" and that is probably how I would define myself except that I am not an atheist. After reading a homily by John Chrysostom, I would be honored to be considered a "demon" by anyone who thinks the Jews (or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists) are demons.

A few weeks ago, I was reading an exchange between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow called War of the Worldviews. Most people probably know who Chopra is. Mlodinow coauthored A Briefer History of Time with Stephen Hawking. To help replace the "?" with something, I would be on Chopra's side.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 01:18 AM

Yeah, Cafolini, who thinks the Catholic Church was a leading member of the Axis powers during WWII, is probably just apathetic.
Hey, you're the one always babbling about logic and proving stuff, so show me where cafolini has ever stated his religious beliefs.

BienvenuJDC

03-27-2012, 01:18 AM

So, what, anyone who doesn't espouse christianity on a regular basis can only be atheists? Not agnostics or just apathetica, but full-blown atheists? Honestly, why are you even jumping on Pip for such an innocuous claim?

The point is that whether someone is an atheist or not, there are several people on that list that are very antagonistic against Christians, which was the point of the conversation...and the balance thereof. Orphanpip was not addressing the question honestly.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 01:35 AM

Aside from cafolini, I don't see anyone on that list who's antagonistic towards Christians (and cafolini can be antagonistic to just about anything). Disagreeing with Christianity doesn't equal antagonism.

OrphanPip

03-27-2012, 03:36 AM

Seriously???? You can't determine if the MANY "?" are ATHEIST? Nevermind...it isn't your counting that is in question, it's your ability to make a reasonable deduction.

Well I had vague memories of Cacian and YesNo as not identifying as atheist. And I honestly don't know anything about the religious beliefs of Mortal, Wyatt or JC. They could all be lapsed Catholics for all I know. Maybe caf could be an atheist, but he tends to just jump into any discussion attacking random targets, so who knows.

The point is that whether someone is an atheist or not, there are several people on that list that are very antagonistic against Christians, which was the point of the conversation...and the balance thereof. Orphanpip was not addressing the question honestly.

Well no, the claim was that the general balance was 5 atheist for 1 Christian in the religion forum.

Charles Darnay

03-27-2012, 07:50 AM

Here's a quote from the first homily:

From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold.

This was written around 400 CE, so the antisemitism goes back that far. I don't really know what the difference is between anti-Judaism and antisemitism after reading this.

I think it's just a technical matter. Despite our cultural language, "Semite" does not equal "Jew"

Drkshadow03

03-27-2012, 07:52 AM

Uh, no, it's an is/ought fallacy. I went to great lengths to demonstrate this to you, but apparently you're just incapable of understanding.

Well, you used terms within the initial syllogism that I don't agree represent my viewpoint, which suggests you're not paying close attention to what I'm saying. Then you tried to fit various Biblical quotes as the Minor Premise, ignoring that the Passion/Trial is more of a scene within the various Gospels consisting of many quotes, which I found completely disingenuous.

So given the disingenuous approach, not carefully listening to your interlocutor, and the fact that you're having five other debates and claiming it's them not you, I decided you weren't persuadable, and didn't wish to waste my time anymore with someone who is so perplexed with basic facts of history.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 08:16 AM

Well, you used terms within the initial syllogism that I don't agree represent my viewpoint, which suggests you're not paying close attention to what I'm saying. Then you tried to fit various Biblical quotes as the Minor Premise, ignoring that the Passion/Trial is more of a scene within the various Gospels consisting of many quotes, which I found completely disingenuous.

So given the disingenuous approach, not carefully listening to your interlocutor, and the fact that you're having five other debates and claiming it's them not you, I decided you weren't persuadable, and didn't wish to waste my time anymore with someone who is so perplexed with basic facts of history.

Listen, it's such a canard to suggest I don't carefully listen to my interlocutors when the real problem is that you're making outrageous accusations that can be shown to be irrational. You don't agree that the initial syllogism represents your viewpoint because you don't how to render your thoughts into logical arguments, and I do. It's fairly rudimentary in logic that one cannot proceed from a declarative statement directly to an imperative one. So if we had the most heinous description--no matter how false and unjust--of what precisely the Jews did, it would never follow that some course of action is appropriate. In fact, the only courses of action that are offered in the documents in question are exactly counter to the sort of behavior you're discussing. The only way to arrive at the course of action you're discussing, is to obscure the Gospels.

If you wrongly assume this is, in principle, an appropriate method, then we can proceed willy-nilly throughout history blaming things on the Gospels. Because no reasonable deduction occurs, we can literally choose any conclusion possible and maintain the same form of argument you are using. All you have is a premise followed by some unconnected conclusion, so we can attribute Happy Meal toys and soccer to the Gospels in the same manner. You probably think this is frivolous simply because you have no understanding of what might constitute a rational train of thought.

The form of what you're saying is as follows:

Fact A is true.
Document B bears responsibility for action C.

And because no ratiocination occurs here, we can literally just plug in whatever we want into the variables and maintain your thinking, which is to say you're not doing a good job of thinking.

The problem is not one of soundness, but rather validity. Before one can test the soundness of an argument, one must have confirmed the validity. Validity does not concern whether your statements are true or properly conclude from one another, but whether they are presented in a form that make soundness even a possibility. The problem is that your idea doesn't have enough parts to even qualify as rational; thus, we needn't concern ourselves with an examination of soundness at all.

JCamilo

03-27-2012, 09:09 AM

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 09:20 AM

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 10:31 AM

ok, so now we know.

1 - Gospels are not obscures on their own,
2- They are not open to multiple interpretations,
3 - Nobody ever read it and come with justifications to persecute jews from it because after all everyone who read it was rational and everyone read it under the same context and giving the same importance to the same selected passages of the book,
4 - It was written in english by Shakespeare.

Now, that the christian have taught the jew his place, we can and burn the atheists in a fire? That is how it was done in the old days when people are very adamant about their reason and faith on Jesus (derivated probally from the reading of the Qu'ran). Time to do like Jesus and be a sword to restaure the old law. Amem.

Of course, this is just more poorly expressed obfuscation, which seems to be your specialty, J. Your list here is just straw man after straw man.

1. It's fairly difficult to understand precisely what you mean here since, unfortunately, "obscures" isn't a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that the "facts", be they historical or theological, have been obscured in the Christian Gospels. Whether this claim is true is completely irrelevant if the argument is that the Gospels, themselves, provide sufficient warrant for anti-Semitism. Implicit in the proposition is that the Gospels are the primary source material. The historicity of the Gospels doesn't even figure into this particular discussion since we are concerned with the Gospels themselves.

2. No one has made this claim. What I am saying is that the general consensus is that what we might loosely call "Christians precepts" involve pacifism, generosity and radical love. If someone arrives at an interpretation counter to this, they have an enormous explanatory onus. After all, the Gospels are full of explicit prohibitions against the sort of behavior being considered. All anyone has done is offer some declarative statements from the Bible, and apparently they, like you, don't understand that there is no manner in which to logically transition from such statements to imperatives. Even if the Gospels stated explicitly that the Jews were guilty of deicide, you would still have to have in the Gospels a recommended course of action for deicide. The missing premise is the one that would include the causal mechanism. And if it were, as you imply, so easy to understand, you guys would just state the missing premise rather than engaging in obfuscation.

3. I am saying EXACTLY that irrational persons have read the Bible and come to questionable conclusions. You seem to be implying that because irrational persons exist, any text has some obligation to foresee all possible irrational conclusions. If an irrational person comes to an irrational conclusion about the Gospels, then the causal mechanism would be the person's own irrationality and would, consequently, exonerate the Gospels. You seem to think that the Gospels are responsible for whatever some crazy person might unreasonably conclude, regardless of any explicit directives to the contrary.

The irony is that the same sloppy logic that led to the Gospels being used as a justification for anti-Semitism historically is the EXACT SAME garbage being propose by DRKShadow. Insofar as reason is concerned, he agrees completely with the rationalizations of the anti-Semites. He thinks the Gospels provide sufficient warrant for the persecution of the Jews. So either we agree that DRKShadow is being irrational or you agree with DRkshadow that the Gospels provide sufficient warrant for the persecution of the Jews. Since you seem to be suggesting that irrational persons could conclude, because of their irrationality, that the Gospels recommend persecution, then it sounds as if you would agree with me. But then one wonders why you make this statement in criticism of me.

4. Everyone knows Dante wrote the Bible.

JCamilo

03-27-2012, 11:24 AM

Of course, this is just more poorly expressed obfuscation, which seems to be your specialty, J. Your list here is just straw man after straw man.

1. It's fairly difficult to understand precisely what you mean here since, unfortunately, "obscures" isn't a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that the "facts", be they historical or theological, have been obscured in the Christian Gospels. Whether this claim is true is completely irrelevant if the argument is that the Gospels, themselves, provide sufficient warrant for anti-Semitism. Implicit in the proposition is that the Gospels are the primary source material. The historicity of the Gospels doesn't even figure into this particular discussion since we are concerned with the Gospels themselves.

Oh, I am the first one to admit it was a type and not an intended plural, but really...

I used as an adjective. Paul is tall. See, like this. If you cannot identify simple grammatical functions in a phrase as simple as this one, how you can be any authority in a text such as the gospels?

by the way: sorry, but merriam-webster disagrees with you about "Obscure" not being an noum.

And no, I do not mean the historical construction of the gospels such as who, when how they ended in the final form. They are obscure enough as text, not easy to be understood at all. At momments they demand the reader to have a considerable knowledge of older texts. Sometimes the text abuse of allegorical references and duality. And sometimes they follow the very Jesus who clearly pointed how his closest follower had difficulty to understand him.

2. No one has made this claim. What I am saying is that the general consensus is that what we might loosely call "Christians precepts" involve pacifism, generosity and radical love. If someone arrives at an interpretation counter to this, they have an enormous explanatory onus. After all, the Gospels are full of explicit prohibitions against the sort of behavior being considered. All anyone has done is offer some declarative statements from the Bible, and apparently they, like you, don't understand that there is no manner in which to logically transition from such statements to imperatives. Even if the Gospels stated explicitly that the Jews were guilty of deicide, you would still have to have in the Gospels a recommended course of action for deicide. The missing premise is the one that would include the causal mechanism. And if it were, as you imply, so easy to understand, you guys would just state the missing premise rather than engaging in obfuscation.

And since when Drkshadow is saying that people who read the gospels and focused only the the trial allegory or those who see Judas as a representative of all Jews, or Jesus lament for Israel as a condemantion of Jews are correct, nice or not unfair. He is just saying it is possible and have caused it. I have seen historical use of this justification. It is not the only interpreation that is twisted versions of the Gospels. Even dogmative stuff like Virgin Mary or Jesus being God, the trinity survived beside several different interpretations. So, yes, the episode of John when the crowd assume with Pilatos the "Penalty" for killing an innocent and for their generations was a probally a non-historical device to use the destruction of Jerusalem and the persecution of jews that was happening when the gospels are writen as a foreshadowing narrative device. "Yes, you people from Jerusalem denied Jesus. Now see he was divine, as the curse you have cast upon yourselves is just happening" kind of argument. He probally didnt meant to blame all jews, even if at that momment the rupture between christians and jews was final, but I certainly can see people to use it to justify the persecution of jews unless they abandon their heritage, thus scape from the "curse" and turn in christians. This happened and there is a considerable literature and philosophy from jews after first century concerning their identidy to imagine how this is not so trivial.

3. I am saying EXACTLY that irrational persons have read the Bible and come to questionable conclusions. You seem to be implying that because irrational persons exist, any text has some obligation to foresee all possible irrational conclusions. If an irrational person comes to an irrational conclusion about the Gospels, then the causal mechanism would be the person's own irrationality and would, consequently, exonerate the Gospels. You seem to think that the Gospels are responsible for whatever some crazy person might unreasonably conclude, regardless of any explicit directives to the contrary.

Again, there is a large difference from arguing kids died because they wanted to fly like superman and saying that a kid have done the mistake after reading superman. It is easy to see the process of rupture in the gospels and easy to consider people taking this rupture a bit too far.

The irony is that the same sloppy logic that led to the Gospels being used as a justification for anti-Semitism historically is the EXACT SAME garbage being propose by DRKShadow. Insofar as reason is concerned, he agrees completely with the rationalizations of the anti-Semites. He thinks the Gospels provide sufficient warrant for the persecution of the Jews. So either we agree that DRKShadow is being irrational or you agree with DRkshadow that the Gospels provide sufficient warrant for the persecution of the Jews. Since you seem to be suggesting that irrational persons could conclude, because of their irrationality, that the Gospels recommend persecution, then it sounds as if you would agree with me. But then one wonders why you make this statement in criticism of me.

He is being rational. He is saying those guys used those elements of the gospels to justify their attrocities. This is not using or agreeing with those elements. If I say Hitler considered Jesus a non-jew, I do not mean I think Jesus was a non-jew.

I am sure you don't think the misuse of the gospels - which you agree exits - happened because the nativity passage? Or baptism?

YesNo

03-27-2012, 11:42 AM

Crucifixion, as barbarous as it is, was the common method of capital punishment for the Romans, and it was the system itself, rather than specific individuals who followed the law, as savage as was, who was "the Butcher." According to the New Testament accounts, Pontius Pilate--a relatively minor administrative official stationed in Jerusalem--did not want to have anything to do with intrigue among the local political factions. He just wanted to do his time and get out. The last thing he wanted to do was to stir up trouble (which would have been trouble for himself); certainly "he didn't want to terrorize the populace."

According to Matthew (27: 15-26) Pilate actually argues for the release of Jesus, stating that he has committed no crime,but seeing that "a riot was breaking out," he literally washed his hands of the whole matter. (You could make the argument that Pilate was weak and cowardly, but not overtly a butcher.)
I know I responded to this earlier, but I found out some more about Pilate from the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate that makes me suspect Pilate was not just "wanting to do his time and get out".

The article has the following from Philo about Pilate:

In describing his personality, Philo writes that Pilate had "vindictiveness and furious temper," and was "naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness." He writes that Pilate feared a delegation that the Jews might send to Tiberius protesting the gold-coated shields, because "if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty."

This quote confirms my suspicion that Pilate was the only one responsible for the death of Jesus.

As far as antisemitism goes in the Gospels, if the Jews did not in any way influence Pilate, then the Christians had for some time been lying and committing slander against the Jews culminating in the Gospel accounts. The actual Gospel writers, whoever they were, may have believed the lies that had become part of their culture.

Although I can see a reason for the Christians to want to side with Rome and not with the Jews who were being defeated, I think there might be more to this than I am aware of at the moment.

AuntShecky

03-27-2012, 12:18 PM

Jesus was a thorn in the side of the Jewish leaders of the time. Also in some sense, he was a threat to the Roman leaders. So in a sense you can say it's a shared responsibility on who's to blame. Depends on how you look at it. But the bottom line is the gospels really blame it on mankind as a whole. An indictment of man in general.

Well-said!

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 12:36 PM

And no, I do not mean the historical construction of the gospels such as who, when how they ended in the final form. They are obscure enough as text, not easy to be understood at all. At momments they demand the reader to have a considerable knowledge of older texts. Sometimes the text abuse of allegorical references and duality. And sometimes they follow the very Jesus who clearly pointed how his closest follower had difficulty to understand him.

It doesn't matter what you mean about the construction of the Gospels when the original charge leveled was that the Gospels themselves, as they finally appeared, were the cause of historical anti-Semitism. What's so ridiculous about what you are saying, J, is that you could easily make the point by demonstrating an argument for how anti-Semitism could be reasonably derived from the Gospels. Unless of course you don't think it's possible. If all you're saying is that anti-Semitism can be UNreasonably derived from the Gospels, then we agree completely. If you can't reasonably derive justification of anti-Semitism from the Gospels, then you can't reasonably call the Gospels a cause of anti-Semitism. A mechanism is causal only insofar as it is reasonably so. If you want to allow unreasonable causes, then we are justified in saying that automobiles cause rain or licorice causes murder.

but I certainly can see people to use it to justify the persecution of jews unless they abandon their heritage, thus scape from the "curse" and turn in christians.

It doesn't matter if you can imagine people “using it to justify the persecution of the Jews.” To establish some causal relationship, you would have to be able to say that you think people RIGHTLY used it to persecute the Jews or used it APPROPRIATELY. To establish the relationship that is being proposed you need to find in the Gospels not only a statement of Jewish character, but also a statement of appropriate action given such character. There is no way to establish a directive for persecution of the Jews using the Christian Gospels. In fact, one finds an abundance of prohibitions ruining the entire argument.

Again, there is a large difference from arguing kids died because they wanted to fly like superman and saying that a kid have done the mistake after reading superman.

Are you trying to suggest that Superman comic books bear responsibility for children jumping off roofs? What if the comic explicitly stated that children should, under no circumstances, jump off a roof?

It is easy to see the process of rupture in the gospels and easy to consider people taking this rupture a bit too far.

You betray your understanding right here. You agree that people took things “a bit too far.” The mechanism you're implicating here is a natural human tendency to overreact.

I am sure you don't think the misuse of the gospels - which you agree exits - happened because the nativity passage? Or baptism?

LOL! First of all, it is logically incoherent to suggest that the Gospels could ever be responsible for a “misuse of the Gospels.” I feel like I'm talking to a fifth grader who can't understand why the fact that Sally stinks isn't a logically sufficient warrant for shooting her. To implicate the Gospels as being responsible for anti-Semitism, you would need some secondary imperative statement from the Gospels requiring persecution of the Jews, and there is no such statement in the Gospels—not to mention the fact that there are numerous statements prohibiting such things.

Moreover, I don't think things like anti-Semitism derive directly from any sort of scriptural source, but rather political and sociological sources. Whenever two different groups come into conflict, there is always an attempt to clothe one's animosity in the language of the culture. If the US goes to war with Iraq, it is not surprising that the justifications of such a war would be worded in terms of freedom and democracy; however, it does not follow that freedom or democracy bear responsibility for the Iraq war, nor does it follow that the Americans were truly using freedom and democracy as the impetus for said war. This should be fairly obvious.

But, really, it's far simpler than this. You cannot deduce anything from a single statement. Period. No matter how vile a description of Jews appears in the Gospels, no action can be reasonably deduced from it. It's logically impossible.

Rigorous logic isn't something best relegated to a math text. We are all engaged in it whether we know it, including you J. The problem is that the arguments you're making don't implicate the Gospels. What you're saying sounds like:

1. The Gospels say the Jews killed Jesus.
2. Experience tells us that people often “take things too far.”
-----
3. It is easy to understand why people misconstrued the Gospels as giving them permission to persecute the Jews.

The problem, of course, is that the causal mechanism you cite in premise two is human nature, not the gospels. If you want to implicate the Gospels, you need a second premise directly from the Gospels.

This is what I find frustrating about this forum. Any truism no matter how banal or apparent will be rejected just cuz.

JCamilo

03-27-2012, 02:35 PM

It doesn't matter what you mean about the construction of the Gospels when the original charge leveled was that the Gospels themselves, as they finally appeared, were the cause of historical anti-Semitism. What's so ridiculous about what you are saying, J, is that you could easily make the point by demonstrating an argument for how anti-Semitism could be reasonably derived from the Gospels. Unless of course you don't think it's possible. If all you're saying is that anti-Semitism can be UNreasonably derived from the Gospels, then we agree completely. If you can't reasonably derive justification of anti-Semitism from the Gospels, then you can't reasonably call the Gospels a cause of anti-Semitism. A mechanism is causal only insofar as it is reasonably so. If you want to allow unreasonable causes, then we are justified in saying that automobiles cause rain or licorice causes murder.

People do not have to be reasonable. They often are not. How many people make up the "man come from apes" in Darwin's while he never wrote something like that. Reasonably, I do not think the gospels preach hatred. But reasonably, I do think people can see anything they want in a text. They do it all the time.

It doesn't matter if you can imagine people “using it to justify the persecution of the Jews.” To establish some causal relationship, you would have to be able to say that you think people RIGHTLY used it to persecute the Jews or used it APPROPRIATELY. To establish the relationship that is being proposed you need to find in the Gospels not only a statement of Jewish character, but also a statement of appropriate action given such character. There is no way to establish a directive for persecution of the Jews using the Christian Gospels. In fact, one finds an abundance of prohibitions ruining the entire argument.

There is only one problem. The literal history is about a Jew (Judas) betraying Jesus. A group of jewish leaders torturing him and delivering him to Rome. Literaly, the afirmation "Jews were responsable for Jesus death" is rather true, not false. Yes, the whole message is about forgiviness, christian should have forgiven Judas and Caifas and etc. for it, but this does not mean that it is a false idea.

In the end, only the Gospels mention that Judas and Caifas (jews) are responsable for Jesus death. It is not to mention that John is, unlike the other three, more incisive about it.

Are you trying to suggest that Superman comic books bear responsibility for children jumping off roofs? What if the comic explicitly stated that children should, under no circumstances, jump off a roof?

Obviously not. It was an example of how wrong this is. But still, nobody denies that a kid imitating superman have read about superman in the comics, does them? Does matter if the kid was reasonable? Does matter if I can make a text defending the logic of imitating cartoons and comic books? No.

You betray your understanding right here. You agree that people took things “a bit too far.” The mechanism you're implicating here is a natural human tendency to overreact.

I have no idea what I betray. I do not think people must follow blindly any text, be it Karl Marx or the bible. This does not means the world has not fanatics.

LOL! First of all, it is logically incoherent to suggest that the Gospels could ever be responsible for a “misuse of the Gospels.” I feel like I'm talking to a fifth grader who can't understand why the fact that Sally stinks isn't a logically sufficient warrant for shooting her. To implicate the Gospels as being responsible for anti-Semitism, you would need some secondary imperative statement from the Gospels requiring persecution of the Jews, and there is no such statement in the Gospels—not to mention the fact that there are numerous statements prohibiting such things.

No, we feel like talking to a fifth grade. No one blame the gospels. Everyone said the person can read the gospels and come with interpretations that lead to it. The person is the responsable. Not the gospels.

To say someone read the gospels and from there justified anti-semitism we just need, you know, people claiming Jews killed Our Lord, which you probally heard a couple of time. Or do you think it is a new idea?

Moreover, I don't think things like anti-Semitism derive directly from any sort of scriptural source, but rather political and sociological sources. Whenever two different groups come into conflict, there is always an attempt to clothe one's animosity in the language of the culture. If the US goes to war with Iraq, it is not surprising that the justifications of such a war would be worded in terms of freedom and democracy; however, it does not follow that freedom or democracy bear responsibility for the Iraq war, nor does it follow that the Americans were truly using freedom and democracy as the impetus for said war. This should be fairly obvious.

Obviously, it took hundred of years, several other circunstances to create anti- semitism as today. The gospels represent a rupture on religious ground, but like all that is religious, it is widely corrupted by use. Is there is any reasonable motive for Muslim and Jewish hatred in the texts? No. They manage to find it? Heck, they do.

But, really, it's far simpler than this. You cannot deduce anything from a single statement. Period. No matter how vile a description of Jews appears in the Gospels, no action can be reasonably deduced from it. It's logically impossible.

what about John? "I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”. This statment is too vague. If he was talking about all humankind, he could use Adam's Descendants. With Abraham he is being quite specific and if he was mentioning just the farisees, why not doing his metaphorical routine (sepulcres, etc)?

John is a weird one, one because he was a brillant writer, he do make Jesus as something totally new and his borrowing from older jewish texts are often in dialect form, he is really making up a new religion and now just a new jewish breach (like we could say Paul was trying at first). Mathew is also a great critic of jews, but he seems to work from inside, still a jew. Not John. From that point alone - considering one can "elect" what he records or understand in a text, you may claim Sherlock "Jesus" Holmes solved the mistery of his death.

Rigorous logic isn't something best relegated to a math text. We are all engaged in it whether we know it, including you J. The problem is that the arguments you're making don't implicate the Gospels. What you're saying sounds like:

1. The Gospels say the Jews killed Jesus.
2. Experience tells us that people often “take things too far.”
-----
3. It is easy to understand why people misconstrued the Gospels as giving them permission to persecute the Jews.

Logic only stars after we reckonize the elements we use. I did not said anything about the Gospels gave permission, It is not a human being to be guilty or responsable for anything.

I rather say:

1- The responsables for Jesus death are indeed a group of jews alongside Roma.
2 - The gospels are written in the context of Christian-Jewish rupture. Those elements, even if mostly philosophically, are present in the text.
3 - Roma obviously wont persecute themselves. They already "loved" to persecute Jews.
4 -Some passages in the gospels are obscure enough to leave a unexperienced critical writer "unreasonable".
5 - People can read a text (any text) and come with conclusions that do not include the text as a whole and they can not learn the meaning of several passages in the text.
6 - Those people read the gospels anyways. And used it as justification to persecute jews.

No denial that 99% of time Jesus tell people about forgiving and non-violence. THe other 1% he loves wine. No guilty of the gospels or even Mein Kampf. The individuals are guilty. One needs to be already warped to read it and come with any form of violence. No guilty of anyone (jews, romans, god, jesus, etc., it is not a crime novel).

The problem, of course, is that the causal mechanism you cite in premise two is human nature, not the gospels. If you want to implicate the Gospels, you need a second premise directly from the Gospels.

This is what I find frustrating about this forum. Any truism no matter how banal or apparent will be rejected just cuz.

No one is blaming the gospels. They are here in this discussion just an object. Unable to perform actions. As Borges would say, closed they are just a possibility. You need a Person to read to make it be. So, we can use Borges to clean the case against the gospels and focus on however read it.

But if you still itchy with Borges, I do not blame Salinger, but the shooter, Chapman for the death of John Lennon.

Alexander III

03-27-2012, 03:23 PM

Listen, it's such a canard to suggest I don't carefully listen to my interlocutors when the real problem is that you're making outrageous accusations that can be shown to be irrational. You don't agree that the initial syllogism represents your viewpoint because you don't how to render your thoughts into logical arguments, and I do. It's fairly rudimentary in logic that one cannot proceed from a declarative statement directly to an imperative one. So if we had the most heinous description--no matter how false and unjust--of what precisely the Jews did, it would never follow that some course of action is appropriate. In fact, the only courses of action that are offered in the documents in question are exactly counter to the sort of behavior you're discussing. The only way to arrive at the course of action you're discussing, is to obscure the Gospels.

If you wrongly assume this is, in principle, an appropriate method, then we can proceed willy-nilly throughout history blaming things on the Gospels. Because no reasonable deduction occurs, we can literally choose any conclusion possible and maintain the same form of argument you are using. All you have is a premise followed by some unconnected conclusion, so we can attribute Happy Meal toys and soccer to the Gospels in the same manner. You probably think this is frivolous simply because you have no understanding of what might constitute a rational train of thought.

The form of what you're saying is as follows:

Fact A is true.
Document B bears responsibility for action C.

And because no ratiocination occurs here, we can literally just plug in whatever we want into the variables and maintain your thinking, which is to say you're not doing a good job of thinking.

The problem is not one of soundness, but rather validity. Before one can test the soundness of an argument, one must have confirmed the validity. Validity does not concern whether your statements are true or properly conclude from one another, but whether they are presented in a form that make soundness even a possibility. The problem is that your idea doesn't have enough parts to even qualify as rational; thus, we needn't concern ourselves with an examination of soundness at all.

Has anyone ever told you, that you sound like Robespierre?

Well, not that I know what he sounded like; but you do sound like what I imagine Robespierre sounded like.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 03:45 PM

No one is blaming the gospels.

Okay, this is the essence of our disagreement then. DRKShadow said, more than once, that the Gospels "caused" anti-Semitism and and the suffering of the Jewish people. Perhaps he did not mean to say this, but he did, in fact, repeat it when questioned.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 04:20 PM

Has anyone ever told you, that you sound like Robespierre?

Generally only the persons who assume I'm an anti-Semite because I'm a Christian.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I explain why the Gospels aren't inherently anti-Semitic, and then I'm an anti-Semite rationalizing the Reign of Terror.

You guys are are right. This is all perfectly reasonable. No bias here.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 04:48 PM

Okay, this is the essence of our disagreement then. DRKShadow said, more than once, that the Gospels "caused" anti-Semitism and and the suffering of the Jewish people. Perhaps he did not mean to say this, but he did, in fact, repeat it when questioned.

I'm pretty sure Drk claimed the gospels could be seen as partly being a possible cause of anti-semitism, not that they were the sole cause.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 05:03 PM

I'm pretty sure Drk claimed the gospels could be seen as partly being a possible cause of anti-semitism, not that they were the sole cause.

It doesn't matter if he said "partly." A thing cannot be both blameless and responsible in regards to the same effect; it's incoherent to state otherwise. And muddling your statement with a trail of moderating words--"partly" "possible" "perhaps" "perchance"--doesn't change that.

Drkshadow03

03-27-2012, 05:12 PM

I'm pretty sure Drk claimed the gospels could be seen as partly being a possible cause of anti-semitism, not that they were the sole cause.

Yep. Pretty much that. What I actually said was a certain trope of anti-Semitism (the charge of Deicide) clearly has its origins in an interpretation of the Gospels' Passion scenes. Not all tropes of anti-Semitism or all anti-Semitism.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 05:25 PM

It doesn't matter if he said "partly." A thing cannot be both blameless and responsible in regards to the same effect; it's incoherent to state otherwise. And muddling your statement with a trail of moderating words--"partly" "possible" "perhaps" "perchance"--doesn't change that.

Bull****. By this logic, only one thing can be responsible for anything. I guess Hitler and Hitler alone was the sole responsibility for the Holocaust--we can't say other economic and social factors were partly to blame. Nope! It's all or nothing.

There's a difference between hiding behind qualifying words to avoid blame when making statements (a tactic regularly used by pundits and politicians) and actually using those words for the purpose they are meant for. It's not at all unreasonable to say the gospels were/are partly responsible for anti-semitism, and that's what Drk was saying. You were trying to misrepresent his words to create a unneeded conflict. But, who can blame you? It's what you do.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 05:32 PM

Yep. Pretty much that. What I actually said was a certain trope of anti-Semitism (the charge of Deicide) clearly has its origins in an interpretation of the Gospels' Passion scenes. Not all tropes of anti-Semitism or all anti-Semitism.

I suggested that you were trying to establish a causal relationship with the Gospels and anti-Semitism. You replied as follows:

“Anyone with basic common sense can figure out the causal relationship.”

You later reconfirmed this view when you called the relationship between the Gospels and anti-Semitism “a common sense cause.”

That's what you call “blaming the Gospels.” Period. You can keep trying to weasel your way out of it, but it's apparent to any reasonable person, which is why Mutatis and J are having a bit of trouble.

The irony is that you're starting to sound like a bigot, yourself. You're doing just what anti-Semites have done in the past. You are fallaciously attributing something to a sacred text in order to push your own agenda. I suppose I can blame your post the next time an Israeli defaces a monastery by writing “Death to Christians” in Hebrew across the front.

JCamilo

03-27-2012, 05:33 PM

No, no M&M, this is wrong too.

The Gospel clearly portrays Pilate washing his hands of the crime and the Jewish leaders and a mob (it's hard to imagine every single Jew was present) calling for his death. To call this pure speculation makes no sense. Since first and foremost it is a story and we have no reason to doubt the details of a story.

However, it is valid to question the historicity of the story. Did it really happen in actual history? Did it really happen that exact way? But this then requires evidence for why we should assume it happened differently or why it should be assumed the texts are or aren't historically accurate. Many scholars, for example, see the depiction of Pilate as innocent and the Jews as culpable as a rhetorical ploy designed to curry favor with the Roman overlords and potential gentile converts, while denigrating a rival version of the religion (in the sense that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism).

He clearly - IMO - points that it is possible (and people did it) to interpret some passages in a way that will generate anti-semitism. He does not blame or condem the book. Which is too him just a book, so no responsable for actions ofthe man who read it. He mentions scholars seeing it as anti-semitic.

It is an object, not able to do any action. It needs man, one or many, to cause something. Not a book.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 05:40 PM

Bull****. By this logic, only one thing can be responsible for anything. I guess Hitler and Hitler alone was the sole responsibility for the Holocaust--we can't say other economic and social factors were partly to blame. Nope! It's all or nothing.

There's a difference between hiding behind qualifying words to avoid blame when making statements (a tactic regularly used by pundits and politicians) and actually using those words for the purpose they are meant for. It's not at all unreasonable to say the gospels were/are partly responsible for anti-semitism, and that's what Drk was saying. You were trying to misrepresent his words to create a unneeded conflict. But, who can blame you? It's what you do.

Sorry, M, but you're hardly worth talking to. Are you capable of even identifying the conversation? I'm not saying that it must be the only cause or else. I'm saying you can't defend both J who said "no one is blaming the Gospels" and DRK who is blaming the gospels. My point was that even if you try to moderate the statement by saying DRK is only "partly" blaming the Gospels, he would still be blaming them. Serisouly, man, this is first grade stuff. It is either true that no one is blaming the Gospels or someone IS, in fact, blaming the gospels. The fact that DRK is now moderating his statements to say it isn't the ONLY cause doesn't matter. I can really only see a couple of possibilities: either there are a number of people here with severe learning disabilities or you're just trying to frustrate the conversation.

Being blameless and guilty are mutually exclusive.

MarkBastable

03-27-2012, 06:00 PM

Stuntpickle, you really are a most unpleasant person - condescending, impolite, supercilious, pompous, verbose and - as if to compound all those - not quite as bright as you think you are.

I'm running an offline book on how long it'll take you te get yourself banned again. At the current rate, the short punt looks favourite, and I think that's probably a welcome prognosis for the Forum generally.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 06:05 PM

Sorry, M, but you're hardly worth talking to. Are you capable of even identifying the conversation? I'm not saying that it must be the only cause or else. I'm saying you can't defend both J who said "no one is blaming the Gospels" and DRK who is blaming the gospels. My point was that even if you try to moderate the statement by saying DRK is only "partly" blaming the Gospels, he would still be blaming them. Serisouly, man, this is first grade stuff. It is either true that no one is blaming the Gospels or someone IS, in fact, blaming the gospels. The fact that DRK is now moderating his statements to say it isn't the ONLY cause doesn't matter. I can really only see a couple of possibilities: either there are a number of people here with severe learning disabilities or you're just trying to frustrate the conversation.

Being blameless and guilty are mutually exclusive.

I'm sorry if you're need to try and write in such an intellectual manner obfuscates the point you're trying to make. If you said that in the first place it wouldn't have been a problem, but you didn't. Still, you're true to form by insulting me! You never disappoint.

I wish a mod would just ban you. Looking at other forums you've been on, it'd be nothing new for you.

And if I'm hardly worth talking to, don't talk to me.

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 06:05 PM

Stuntpickle, you really are a most unpleasant person - condescending, arrogant, supercilious, pompous, verbose and - as if to compound all those - not quite as bright as you think you are.

I'm running an offline book on how long it'll take you te get yourself banned again. At the current rate, the short punt looks favourite, and I think that's probably a welcome prognosis for the Forum generally.

To be banned again would require that I had been banned a first time. Your demonstrations of propriety are hardly impressive. Perhaps next time you can drop by to tell us that the children are the future or something else similarly penetrating. I would consider the admiration of the persons frequenting this forum shameful, and if ever I thought I had it, I would immediately set out to divest myself of it.

I'm sorry if you're need to try and write in such an intellectual manner obfuscates the point you're trying to make. If you said that in the first place it wouldn't have been a problem, but you didn't. Still, you're true to form by insulting me! You never disappoint.

I wish a mod would just ban you. Looking at other forums you've been on, it'd be nothing new for you.

And if I'm hardly worth talking to, don't talk to me.

Yeah, because after being called an anti-Semite, being compared to Robespierre and fending off a deluge of anti-Christian drivel, I'm just out of control. I always enjoy when the Lemmings engage in mutual back-patting.

You're right. If you can't read my post, it must be my fault.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 06:22 PM

You're right. If you can't read my post, it must be my fault.
I'm glad we agree.

P.S. You're a real credit to Christians.

Darcy88

03-27-2012, 06:34 PM

Since my post I guess you could count myself, one more atheist. Then there's Aunty and Darcy, neither of whom are atheist as far as I know.

I am an atheist. I vacillate between faint fleeting belief and profound sustained disbelief. I'm not agnostic, faith is either once in a while tenuously there or else I occupy my accustomed state of sharp skeptical atheism. The difference between myself and most other atheists and the reason why my atheism is not more apparent is that I respect theism. I regard Christianity and other religions as moral, emotional, historical and cultural phenomenons, not as dead written tallies of bogus scientific-objective truth claims. Religion is as much of the heart as it is of the mind, as is love. Unless one has been personally wronged by religion I do not think any sort of antipathy towards it is warranted. Most atheists view religion as stupid. Its not. If you reduce love to brain chemicals and biological imperatives you do not thereby make a fool of the passionate lovestruck one who holds his beloved as his world and his everything. Just as love in all its wonder and significance cannot be reduced to mere generalized empirical datum, so neither can all the sweet and mighty power and truth - yes truth - of religion be attributed to ignorance and error.

Drkshadow03

03-27-2012, 06:59 PM

And if I'm hardly worth talking to, don't talk to me.

Well, pretty much everyone in each of his conversations can't be persuaded, aren't worth talking to, and it would be fruitless to continue arguing with, and yet I predict another reply coming. :D

Alexander III

03-27-2012, 08:42 PM

Generally only the persons who assume I'm an anti-Semite because I'm a Christian.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I explain why the Gospels aren't inherently anti-Semitic, and then I'm an anti-Semite rationalizing the Reign of Terror.

You guys are are right. This is all perfectly reasonable. No bias here.

No not your beliefs, just your manner of thought and rhetoric - also I don't know, your personality as it appears on the forums, very Robespierre.

Another thing to note, using many words does not imply a good vocabulary. I fortunatly speack french and some latin, and I noticed that many of the words you use, have very different conotations to that which you intend. A theasaurus is a great thing, but at least check the defenition of words and their origins before using them, otherwise as I have noticed your speaches appear almost farcical, simply due to style, not even giving the content a chance...

stuntpickle

03-27-2012, 09:00 PM

No not your beliefs, just your manner of thought and rhetoric - also I don't know, your personality as it appears on the forums, very Robespierre.

Another thing to note, using many words does not imply a good vocabulary. I fortunatly speack french and some latin, and I noticed that many of the words you use, have very different conotations to that which you intend. A theasaurus is a great thing, but at least check the defenition of words and their origins before using them, otherwise as I have noticed your speaches appear almost farcical, simply due to style, not even giving the content a chance...

LOL! You say I say things without regard for connotation, but you just compared me to Robspierre without intending to imply tyranny or terror. Ha!

In that case, you sound a lot like Hitler. Of course, I don't mean anti-Semitic or anything like that.

Are you serious?

YesNo

03-27-2012, 09:05 PM

Darcy88

03-27-2012, 09:08 PM

Stuntpickle is a pretty prickly dude. I'm sure much of it is natural tendency, but some of it can no doubt be attributed to the intense disdain and caustic mockery that his belief system is subjected to by a large number of people here and elsewhere, myself included.

We look at religion and value it based on the scientific validity of certain of its claims and stories, many of which were written in poetry and intended to convey ineffable truths. That is reverse fundamentalist literalism. Denying the validity of religion is as ignorant as denying the validity of science. Both extremes are narrow-minded.

I'm speaking in general, not of the members of this forum.

Mutatis-Mutandis

03-27-2012, 09:18 PM

Charles Darnay

03-27-2012, 09:29 PM

In trying to find out whether any Jew had anything to do with Jesus death, I ran into an account of Stephen who was considered the first martyr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen

There are two things that I find interesting about Stephen's execution:

1) He was taken to the Sanhedrin, supposedly the way Jesus was, but they didn't then take him to Pilate. When they were done, they just stoned him.

2) Stephen made a speech to the Sanhedrin accusing them of killing their prophets including Jesus. So the accusation of Jews being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus goes back at least to 35 CE.

Why didn't the Sanhedrin take Stephen to Pilate and request a crucifixion?

Edit: I just checked that Pilate was still around since he was the Prefect of Judaea from 26-36 CE.

I admit to not having a great deal of knowledge about this particular case - that being said:

"Why didn't the Sanhedrin take Stephen to Pilate and request a crucifixion?"

Probably has to do with the nature of the "crime." Jesus was seen as committing crimes against the Empire, so he had to be dealt with by the Empire. Stephen's offence was more local and dealt with locally.

Darcy88

03-27-2012, 09:33 PM

Charles Darnay

03-27-2012, 09:37 PM

Plato's Apology is anti-Athenian, anti-Ionian. I hate Greek people. They killed Socrates and Plato portrayed them as irrational and unruly and out for blood. Doesn't matter that Socrates was Greek and its for his sake I hate Greek people. Nope. Grrrrr!

Sir, how dare you misinterpret the Holy Dialogues! I bet you haven't even read the texts in their original Greek - therefore you are ignorant and have no right to speak on the matter :D

YesNo

03-27-2012, 11:54 PM

I admit to not having a great deal of knowledge about this particular case - that being said:

"Why didn't the Sanhedrin take Stephen to Pilate and request a crucifixion?"

Probably has to do with the nature of the "crime." Jesus was seen as committing crimes against the Empire, so he had to be dealt with by the Empire. Stephen's offence was more local and dealt with locally.
I don't know much about it either.

It seems to me the only difference is that in Jesus' case Pilate thought he could have a little fun at the expense of the Jews since the Passover was coming up. Jesus was praised and on display just days ago and now Pilate put him on display again. Pilate was pretty bad even by Roman standards.

Come to think of it, Pilate's actions probably represented an antisemitism as well.

Edit: Perhaps he even staged the event where people were calling for Barabbas and he was washing his hands.

Rores28

03-28-2012, 12:07 AM

This is ridiculous. You make all sorts of assumptions about psychology and biology that can produce absurd conclusions. So Armin Meiwes can morally kill persons and eat them as long as they want to be killed and eaten.

Of course. This would run the same way as a euthanasia argument. This only seems like a problem to most people because of moral intuitions and an inability to empathize with wanting to be eaten alive. Of course in practice this would probably be a fairly rare occurrence. Other things of course come into play such as a possibility that the taste of human flesh will imbue Armin with an insatiable appetite for flesh that leads to him killing and eating unwilling participants, the fear people will have about such an event, etc.

If there can exist any possible world in which the most positive states are achieved through sadism, then your utilitarian morality becomes one promoting sadism. Of course, a world inhabited exclusively by sadists is a possible world. Virtually no one would certify universal sadism as being possibly moral.

I would say that universal sadism in this instance would be preferred. In this hypothetical scenario, let's exaggerate it for the purpose of argument. All of these people are absolutely depressed if they don't get flogged once a day, but one flogging a day fills them with the utmost joy. Thus the best scenario is one where they get flogged once a day, or put another way one where sadism is practiced on everyone who enjoys having sadism practiced on them.

A serial killer can kill you and achieve a positive state that cancels out your negative one, resulting in a moral wash.

Again this is a common but myopic view. In the first, the serial killer would have to get a greater positive state in killing me (and later in basking in the memories of it) than my net positive state for the rest of my life had I continued to live. Further we’d have to assume that the killing was done in secret and there would be no ripples of fear that would echo out to infect other sentient entities. We’d also have to assume that there was no one who would miss or mourn me or feel utterly depressed by my disappearance and or murder at the hands of a serial killer.

If three people want to kill a fourth and three positive states can be achieved, then murder is moral.

In general practice this reasoning is superficial for some of the reasons I stated above. But forget that, let’s up the stakes so we can put an end to this ever “escalating” moral scenarioing, imagine this:
A world is populated by nothing but 1,000 people who get insane amounts of pleasure from torturing children and also watching others torture children. We are talking transcendent levels of bliss like you and I have never known. Then an 8 year old female child manages to get onto the planet. She holds a pretty average view about getting tortured, that is she’s fairly opposed to the idea. The 1,000 other people decide that they would like to torture her and so they chain her to the floor in a large gladiator style arena and each take turns having a go at her with her all sorts implements of torture, razor, acid, blow torches, what have you. They all take their turns and then kill her. At any given instant they all are experiencing a combined positive emotion that exceeds her negative emotions.
Were their actions bad?
Just one of them…… when they killed her. They should have kept torturing her. In killing her they put an end to their exalted positive emotions (and of course her bad ones) but the point is her negative emotions were outweighed by their positive ones, as a stated premise in the scenario.
So I hope I’m not being presumptuous when I say that your stomach probably turns as much as mine when considering this scenario. But this is only because the scenario falls completely outside of our ability to imagine. First, neither one of us can imagine how torturing a child would result in any sort of pleasure, especially of the kind the scenario above proposes. Second, most can imagine, even if only marginally, how horrible it would be to get tortured. Third we can’t really intuit the feelings of 1000 people even if the feelings are uniform and in the realm of our common understanding like the pleasure one gets from eating a piece of apple pie. There’s just no way to intuitively understand the combined emotions of 1000 people. There are of course cultural norms at play and the idea that we evolved in a way that favors heuristics, because considering all scenarios to this degree at that time would have been maladaptive etc.
I’m also ignoring the fact that after the little girl is gone the other 1000 only have themselves to turn to for their victims so they’ve probably created a pretty unsustainable situation as far as lasting positive experiential states go.

*Note* I'm not dodging on the other questions of your response, I will answer them when I have time

BienvenuJDC

03-28-2012, 01:00 AM

I admit to not having a great deal of knowledge about this particular case - that being said:

"Why didn't the Sanhedrin take Stephen to Pilate and request a crucifixion?"

Probably has to do with the nature of the "crime." Jesus was seen as committing crimes against the Empire, so he had to be dealt with by the Empire. Stephen's offence was more local and dealt with locally.

Actually, the political leeway for the Jews had changed somewhat, and second, the Jews just became more bold. The Sanhedrin didn't actually have the political power to put anyone to death, but in the case of Stephen, then just did it anyway. Paul (Saul) was a Roman citizen and a Jewish Pharisee. He had obtained "arrest warrants" for Christians, so he may have had a document allowing for certain things. This was before his conversion of course.

We look at religion and value it based on the scientific validity of certain of its claims and stories, many of which were written in poetry and intended to convey ineffable truths. That is reverse fundamentalist literalism. Denying the validity of religion is as ignorant as denying the validity of science. Both extremes are narrow-minded.

I agree.

stuntpickle

03-28-2012, 01:52 AM

Of course. This would run the same way as a euthanasia argument. This only seems like a problem to most people because of moral intuitions and an inability to empathize with wanting to be eaten alive. Of course in practice this would probably be a fairly rare occurrence. Other things of course come into play such as a possibility that the taste of human flesh will imbue Armin with an insatiable appetite for flesh that leads to him killing and eating unwilling participants, the fear people will have about such an event, etc.

I would say that universal sadism in this instance would be preferred. In this hypothetical scenario, let's exaggerate it for the purpose of argument. All of these people are absolutely depressed if they don't get flogged once a day, but one flogging a day fills them with the utmost joy. Thus the best scenario is one where they get flogged once a day, or put another way one where sadism is practiced on everyone who enjoys having sadism practiced on them.

Again this is a common but myopic view. In the first, the serial killer would have to get a greater positive state in killing me (and later in basking in the memories of it) than my net positive state for the rest of my life had I continued to live. Further we’d have to assume that the killing was done in secret and there would be no ripples of fear that would echo out to infect other sentient entities. We’d also have to assume that there was no one who would miss or mourn me or feel utterly depressed by my disappearance and or murder at the hands of a serial killer.

In general practice this reasoning is superficial for some of the reasons I stated above. But forget that, let’s up the stakes so we can put an end to this ever “escalating” moral scenarioing, imagine this:
A world is populated by nothing but 1,000 people who get insane amounts of pleasure from torturing children and also watching others torture children. We are talking transcendent levels of bliss like you and I have never known. Then an 8 year old female child manages to get onto the planet. She holds a pretty average view about getting tortured, that is she’s fairly opposed to the idea. The 1,000 other people decide that they would like to torture her and so they chain her to the floor in a large gladiator style arena and each take turns having a go at her with her all sorts implements of torture, razor, acid, blow torches, what have you. They all take their turns and then kill her. At any given instant they all are experiencing a combined positive emotion that exceeds her negative emotions.
Were their actions bad?
Just one of them…… when they killed her. They should have kept torturing her. In killing her they put an end to their exalted positive emotions (and of course her bad ones) but the point is her negative emotions were outweighed by their positive ones, as a stated premise in the scenario.
So I hope I’m not being presumptuous when I say that your stomach probably turns as much as mine when considering this scenario. But this is only because the scenario falls completely outside of our ability to imagine. First, neither one of us can imagine how torturing a child would result in any sort of pleasure, especially of the kind the scenario above proposes. Second, most can imagine, even if only marginally, how horrible it would be to get tortured. Third we can’t really intuit the feelings of 1000 people even if the feelings are uniform and in the realm of our common understanding like the pleasure one gets from eating a piece of apple pie. There’s just no way to intuitively understand the combined emotions of 1000 people. There are of course cultural norms at play and the idea that we evolved in a way that favors heuristics, because considering all scenarios to this degree at that time would have been maladaptive etc.
I’m also ignoring the fact that after the little girl is gone the other 1000 only have themselves to turn to for their victims so they’ve probably created a pretty unsustainable situation as far as lasting positive experiential states go.

*Note* I'm not dodging on the other questions of your response, I will answer them when I have time

Look this is pointless. That the net positive state throughout a person's lifetime could ever be quantified or calculated is absurd. This is precisely the sort of reasoning that could be used to indefinitely justify Stalin's purges and other various murders as long some greater theoretical good could be imagined somewhere over the horizon.

No discussion between us can be fruitful because a discussion requires that the participants agree on some premise from which to begin. Insofar as morality is concerned we have no such premise. I think persons are intrinsically valuable, and you don't.

I recommend you read GE Moore, paying careful attention to the naturalistic fallacy and the irreducibility of goodness.

Moore would explode your argument by flipping your assertion on itself. You say that stabbing a masochist is good, and Moore would say that the statement "good is stabbing a masochist" demonstrates the error. Moore really gets the credit for exiling utilitarian morality to the dustbin.

Alexander III

03-28-2012, 05:22 AM

I agree.

As do I, Darcy makes a solid point. I mean what if we were to judge poetry based on science...extremism is always just that, on both sides. When I was younger , 16, I was a very extreme atheist, because like the extreem fundamentalist I found it necesary to have a world layed out in my harmony and my understanding, and anything which I could not understand had to be destroyed. Then I grew up, and amongst my many readings were st Augustin and Chateaubriand, which showed me the beauty of religion. I still remain an unbeliever, but I have come to value religion highly, if anything, at least for the solace it can bring to men and women whos hearts are full of sorrow.

Bien, have you ever read any Chateaubriand? I think you would like it very much.

LOL! You say I say things without regard for connotation, but you just compared me to Robspierre without intending to imply tyranny or terror. Ha!

In that case, you sound a lot like Hitler. Of course, I don't mean anti-Semitic or anything like that.

Are you serious?

One again I feel duty bound to point out, that though "lol" is a great and useful word, you used it in a very awkward and strange manner.

stuntpickle

03-28-2012, 05:48 AM

One again I feel duty bound to point out, that though "lol" is a great and useful word, you used it in a very awkward and strange manner.

Look, I understand you may have recently read the Elements of Style and perhaps now feel as though you are full fledged grammarian ready to disabuse the plebes of their misapprehensions, but I promise that if you're patient, next year one of your professors will tell you that usage is, in some large measure, determined in practice and that nitpicking someone in the manner you are doing is a tedious defect of the soul best left to schoolmarms and other tyrants.

Alexander III

03-28-2012, 08:38 AM

Look, I understand you may have recently read the Elements of Style and perhaps now feel as though you are full fledged grammarian ready to disabuse the plebes of their misapprehensions, but I promise that if you're patient, next year one of your professors will tell you that usage is, in some large measure, determined in practice and that nitpicking someone in the manner you are doing is a tedious defect of the soul best left to schoolmarms and other tyrants.

nitpicking someone in the manner you are doing is a tedious defect of the soul

"defect of the soul" ? seriously, once again I feel duty bound to say, that while hyperbole is useful, when it is used inappropriately (such as referring to me making critiques on your writing style as a "defect of the soul") when used inappropriately it produces great ridicule.

"defect of the soul" would have been more appropriate were you judging me for being a tyrant ala Nero or Stalin. When it comes to being fastidious with grammar(in the greek sense of the word) I believe annoying or tiresome may have been better than "defect of the soul"

Not that I am defending the purity of my soul, I am sure it is quite damaged and broken, but probably being a grammar nazi is not amongst the chief reasons that I have a damned soul.

But hey, had God been a bit stricter with his desires for clarity and exactness of intention is the written language, his prophets might have produced holy books which were not full of vague and cryptic lessons and contradictions, which lead to holy books being able to historically justify almost any action. From genocide and slavery, to equality and peace, all holy books have a verse which can justify it.

I have not read elements of style, I am just speaking on behalf of my impressions, maybe no one else on this forum agrees with my critiques, but nonetheless I assure you that these critiques arise just as much from my desire to be frivolous and galling as they do from a genuine attempt to give you some aid.

stuntpickle

03-28-2012, 02:36 PM

"defect of the soul" ? seriously, once again I feel duty bound to say, that while hyperbole is useful, when it is used inappropriately (such as referring to me making critiques on your writing style as a "defect of the soul") when used inappropriately it produces great ridicule.

"defect of the soul" would have been more appropriate were you judging me for being a tyrant ala Nero or Stalin. When it comes to being fastidious with grammar(in the greek sense of the word) I believe annoying or tiresome may have been better than "defect of the soul"

Not that I am defending the purity of my soul, I am sure it is quite damaged and broken, but probably being a grammar nazi is not amongst the chief reasons that I have a damned soul.

But hey, had God been a bit stricter with his desires for clarity and exactness of intention is the written language, his prophets might have produced holy books which were not full of vague and cryptic lessons and contradictions, which lead to holy books being able to historically justify almost any action. From genocide and slavery, to equality and peace, all holy books have a verse which can justify it.

I have not read elements of style, I am just speaking on behalf of my impressions, maybe no one else on this forum agrees with my critiques, but nonetheless I assure you that these critiques arise just as much from my desire to be frivolous and galling as they do from a genuine attempt to give you some aid.

You're just a passive-aggressive undergrad repeating the cliches you learned in freshman comp. Wrongly admonishing me for using a thesaurus and pretending to instruct me in the use of "big words" is advice directly out of an adult continuing ed class taught at a local community college. Just because something doesn't adhere to the stylistic standards of a Harry Potter novel doesn't mean it deserves your "expert" revisions. You go so far as to scold me for not paying attention to connotation while, yourself, providing an egregious example of disregard for connotation. You're just a caricature.

Alexander III

03-28-2012, 03:13 PM

You're just a passive-aggressive undergrad repeating the cliches you learned in freshman comp.

Like I said before, not aggressive, just very bored and very frivolous in nature.

Also all of that went over my head, I am in an english university, so I have no idea what "comp" is, I do know "freshman", we use that term in england as well.

Wrongly admonishing me for using a thesaurus and pretending to instruct me in the use of "big words" is advice directly out of an adult continuing ed class taught at a local community college.

You think far to highly of me, by saying that I admonished you. Little old me was just voicing his honest opinion. Not quite sure why I used the third person there.

Also I don't quite exactly go to a community college...but I will admit that in two years at university, the only new things which I have learnt are how to sail small boats on rivers, and how to play polo.

Just because something doesn't adhere to the stylistic standards of a Harry Potter novel doesn't mean it deserves your "expert" revisions.

You old men attacking harry potter, much like Shakespeare was attacked by all the old men in his time. 500 years from know all those modernists and over sentimental romantics will be forgotten, and harry potter will be studied in universities. I mean have you read 19th century poetry, that stuff isn't even proper english, and it just a bunch of rich dead white men - all those rich and white dead men will be ignored by posteriority. What do the rich and middle classes know of life anyways...Pansys.

You go so far as to scold me for not paying attention to connotation while, yourself, providing an egregious example of disregard for connotation.

Pray do tell, what was my "egregious" disregard of connotation?

You're just a caricature

I hope at least I am an accurate caricature, I would not be able to bear it were I to discover I was an inaccurate caricature.

stuntpickle

03-28-2012, 03:47 PM

Pray do tell, what was my "egregious" disregard of connotation?

Are you kidding? You compared me to Robespierre without intending to reference anything the man is known for.

YesNo

03-28-2012, 04:40 PM

I stumbled on the Wikipedia article on Deicide today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_death_of_Jesus#Christianity

Ignoring any theological assessment of responsibility in blaming either God or humanity for his death, one of the two alternatives claims that the Roman government alone was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. I guess I'm not the first one to come to that conclusion.

The Jews didn't need Pilate to execute Jesus if they wanted to execute him. There was an adulteress they almost executed. They did stone Stephen and they killed James the Just. So taking Jesus to Pilate was not necessary. The article claims that Philo and Josephus described Pilate as cruel to the Galileans and deposed for his excessive behavior against the Samaritans. He would have had no problem crucifying Jesus with or without Jewish support. Also Pilate enjoyed doing what would be interpreted by the Jewish community as "desecration of Mosaic law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

If Pilate did not have Jewish support then the antisemitism associated with deicide against the Jews is unfounded, but that leaves open the problem of how the Christians could have been mistaken. By the time the Gospels were written the belief that the Jews were responsible was already for decades part of the Christian culture since even Stephen blames the Jews in 35 CE for Jesus' death. So the mistake would have had to occur and become part of the culture prior to 35 CE.

I think it is easy to imagine how such a mistake could have been made. I suspect if the Passover were not near, Pilate would not have cared about Jesus, but with a Jewish celebration he would have the opportunity to practice some form of desecration by crucifying Jesus and two others. He could have even staged the washing of hands with his own soldiers crying out for Barabbas--or his own soldiers pushing a knife against the backs of some Jews who were unfortunate to have been in the area.

After Jesus' crucifixion, the charges against Jewish leaders would have been a natural response of the followers of Jesus especially with stories about the Barabbas incident. And that's how a mistake could have easily been started. Stephen was killed, in my mind, not so much because of his blasphemy but because he insisted that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death which they likely had denied and he did not have the charity to accept.