Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 10-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

"Why did God favor Israel?" he asked. "Why did God make the oath to the Israelite ancestors? The answer to these questions is not provided clearly in the text."

It seems abundantly clear that the reason was the promise to Abraham, which is mentioned many times.

'When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him... No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."' Ge 17:1... 8 NIV

'Then Joseph said to his brothers, "I am about to die. But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."' Ge 50:24 NIV

'But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.' 2 Ki 13:23

Malachi151 · 10-23-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

"Why did God favor Israel?" he asked.

Um... because this was a stupid ancient tribal religion. One can just as easily ask why Zeus favored the Greeks, Jupiter Rome, Ra Egypt, etc., etc.

Um, the gods that the people invent tend to favor the people who invent them, easy anwser.

And anyway, if you actually read the Hebrew Bible I wouldn't call God's actions and attitude towards Israel "favorable". Hell, half of their scritpures are lamenting the punishment that "God" was meting out against them.

With gods like Yahweh, who needs enemies? Yikes!

Clouseau · 10-23-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

In explaining the passage from the Gospel of Mark, Smith said that the troubling portion was appended a century after it was written -- when the four Gospels were compiled.

There's another quote, equally 'dark' but harder to discount:

'"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."' Jn 3:18 NIV

Malachi151 · 10-23-2007, 06:31 PM

One of my favorites:

Quote:

Mark 14:
3 While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. 4 But some were there who said to one another in anger, 'Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.' And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, 'Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.

LOL, what a compassionate guy. But anyway, its silly to even get into this as its all just made up anyway, but still, its funny.

Toto · 10-23-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

She finds two texts especially troublesome -- one in which Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, says, "I am innocent of this man's blood," and the crowd answers, "His blood be on us and our children!"

Who blames the Jews for the death of Jesus? Not Christians, who think of only themselves as individuals as responsible- a favourite theme of preachers.

A lot of Christians did blame the Jews, until it became politically incorrect to do wo. Just look up "deicide."

Quote:

"This is troubling because Imperial Rome had far more to do with the death of Jesus than the Gospels reflect," she said.

So this is, presumably, the notion that Jesus deserved to die for offences against the state. And this keynote speaker is trying to calm things down?

Liberal Christians think that Jeus was killed for his actions against an autocratic and unjust state. It's not that he deserved to die, but he was a political threat.

None of this is particularly well thought out, of course.

Clouseau · 10-23-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Who blames the Jews for the death of Jesus? Not Christians, who think of only themselves as individuals as responsible- a favourite theme of preachers.

Quote:

A lot of Christians did blame the Jews, until it became politically incorrect to do wo.

Some people did, not Christians, who have been running missions to Jews for a long time. But who blames the Jews for the death of Jesus now? No-one, afaik, so this looks like a solution for a non-existent problem. So one wonders if this is not a surreptitious attack on Christianity.

Quote:

So this is, presumably, the notion that Jesus deserved to die for offences against the state. And this keynote speaker is trying to calm things down?

Quote:

Liberal Christians think that Jeus was killed for his actions against an autocratic and unjust state. It's not that he deserved to die, but he was a political threat.

It is pretty hard not to say one without the other, and there are many who have been explicit about Jesus being a brigand or the like.

Quote:

None of this is particularly well thought out, of course.

One hopes it is not deliberate, anyway. Perhaps time will tell. All three comments mentioned seem somewhat odd, to me.

Malachi151 · 10-23-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Some people did, not Christians, who have been running missions to Jews for a long time.

Umm.. blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus has been a mainstream and deeply institutional part of Christianity for 2,000 years, Its really only since WWII that this has stopped in the Christian mainstream.

Magdlyn · 10-23-2007, 07:47 PM

Clouseau has his own special definition of Christian, which makes his comments hard to decode if you're not used to it.

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Some people did, not Christians, who have been running missions to Jews for a long time.

Umm.. blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus has been a mainstream and deeply institutional part of Christianity for 2,000 years, Its really only since WWII that this has stopped in the Christian mainstream.

Even if this is true, how is it relevant to this topic?

Jack the Bodiless · 10-24-2007, 04:55 AM

They seem to be coyly skirting the worst of the problematic verses.

What about the Golden Calf incident? The response of Moses to this exercise in "freedom of religion" was to order a massacre!

And then there's the Koran, with its lurid description of the "awful doom" of unbelievers in the afterlife: we are to be suspended on iron hooks while boiling liquid burns our skin off, then our skin will regenerate so we can enjoy the experience over and over again.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2007, 07:47 PM	#18
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Clouseau has his own special definition of Christian, which makes his comments hard to decode if you're not used to it.

10-24-2007, 04:55 AM	#20
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	They seem to be coyly skirting the worst of the problematic verses. What about the Golden Calf incident? The response of Moses to this exercise in "freedom of religion" was to order a massacre! And then there's the Koran, with its lurid description of the "awful doom" of unbelievers in the afterlife: we are to be suspended on iron hooks while boiling liquid burns our skin off, then our skin will regenerate so we can enjoy the experience over and over again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.