FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-12-2003, 02:00 PM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta,GA,USA
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid
Except this is still problematic.
You are, as fatherphil, using something outside physical realm. I am not appealing to no deeper spiritual truth, nor some deeper problem with omniscience.

I merely stated that, no matter by what force or pre-ordained destiny, the Jews and the Romans were participants. That undeniable. That all of this was pre-ordained does not make it disappear, it merely adds a different understanding of why it all happened--not how it happened.

Quote:
If this God is omnipotent and the shedding of the "lambs blood" (to cleanse the sins of mankind) was prophecied then the Jews and the Romans had no ability to go against God's plan for the crucifixion of Jesus. Perhaps, like Pharaoh God hardened the heart of these people to insure the death and subsequent ressurection of Jesus, therefore the only to "blame" for this cruel death is God himself.
From the perspective of predestination, God's omnipotentce and omniscience, there is no such thing as "fault." Fault implies wrong, mistake, error, etc. This is not possible from a God's neutral stand.

God creates and everything He creates is exactly as He wants.
Milton is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 03:39 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the 10th planet
Posts: 5,065
Default

I donít see why anyone would blame the Jews at all, they were doing exactly what the Bible told them to do, that was their job. Someone commits blasphemy or violates the Sabbath, they get whacked.
Iím not saying this makes sense, but itís spelled out quite clearly in Leviticus & Deuteronomy.
Marduk is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 05:28 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
the Jews and the Romans were participants. That undeniable.
No, it certainly is deniable because we have no substantial or credible outside evidence that anything in the gospels happened as alleged. We have a story about a man that was allegedly crucified and that is it. It is a story and one that scholars, scientists and theologans have attempted to prove for centuries, and yet to no avail.



Quote:
You are, as fatherphil, using something outside physical realm. I am not appealing to no deeper spiritual truth, nor some deeper problem with omniscience.
Well, as an atheist I don't believe in anything outside the physical realm so I can assure you that I am not appealing to any "deeper spiritual truth", but merely attempting to reconcile the alleged nature of this God in this myth and what we actually know about the real world. If this God is omniscient, etc. the Jews and the Romans aren't to blame for being mere puppets in a pre-ordained theatrical performance. However, in the real world ... and with the evidence we do have (which is paltry and does not support the Gospel accounts) it seems that we cannot accurately conclude that any of it ever happened. For the sake of argument we can presume otherwise and attempt to come to a more realistic and probable conclusion by examining what we do know.


Quote:
God creates and everything He creates is exactly as He wants.
Then man has no free will and cannot be responsible for the "sins" he commits and therefore there was never any need for a blood sacrifice to redeem us from that which we do not control.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 08:23 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

considering the fact that He was loved and supported by jews and that His message was perpetuated by jews, could you also say that his resurrection was celebrated and his birth was welcomed by "the jews"?

or how about saying that reginald denny was stomped by "the blacks" or james byrd jr. was dragged to death by "the whites"?

certainly a discussion could be raised about whether the Gospel authors had intended the text to be anti-semetic or has it been translated to come off that way. or if it is even anti-semetic in the first place. certainly it was written at a time that predated some of the most egregious offenses committed against the jewish people.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 09:32 AM   #25
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta,GA,USA
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fatherphil
considering the fact that He was loved and supported by jews and that His message was perpetuated by jews, could you also say that his resurrection was celebrated and his birth was welcomed by "the jews"?
Yes, "the jews who loved Him". Remember, I did not say "all Jews", I only said that the ones who played the biggest role in the crucifixion were Jews, and Romans.

Quote:
or how about saying that reginald denny was stomped by "the blacks" or james byrd jr. was dragged to death by "the whites"?
Sorry, I know not those people you speak of.

Quote:
certainly a discussion could be raised about whether the Gospel authors had intended the text to be anti-semetic or has it been translated to come off that way. or if it is even anti-semetic in the first place. certainly it was written at a time that predated some of the most egregious offenses committed against the jewish people.
How could the Scripture be anti-semitic? Could you explain that?
Milton is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 09:42 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
How could the Scripture be anti-semitic? Could you explain that?
One could look to the love Paul had for the Jews (which of course is a bit of sarcasm), and then look to the ruling Roman Empire that "assembeled" the gospels and their relationship with the Jews, the examine the historical record that Catholic Church has with the Jews (and also responsible for translation, editing and adding/removing certain Biblical books) and it is not difficult to see an anti-semetic motivation, as well as result.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 10:03 AM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta,GA,USA
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid
One could look to the love Paul had for the Jews (which of course is a bit of sarcasm), and then look to the ruling Roman Empire that "assembeled" the gospels and their relationship with the Jews, the examine the historical record that Catholic Church has with the Jews (and also responsible for translation, editing and adding/removing certain Biblical books) and it is not difficult to see an anti-semetic motivation, as well as result.

Brighid
I am talking about the Gospels, not Paul. And even with that, there is no way you could make it anti-semitic. Furthermore, even if it spoke against a certain tradition, it is not promoting agression against anyone.
Milton is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 11:26 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
I am talking about the Gospels, not Paul. And even with that, there is no way you could make it anti-semitic. Furthermore, even if it spoke against a certain tradition, it is not promoting agression against anyone.
Thanks for the clarification, but you did originally say "scripture."

I am not sure that the Gospels deliberately promote anti-semitism, but when looked at within the context of Scripture it doesn't bode well for Christian claims of anti-semitism such as Jesus calling Jews dogs, devils, etc. I don't think the Gospels can be removed from Scripture when discussing the development of anti-semitism as it is disseminated through Christianity.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 02:37 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

i think brig has a point about the catholic church's motives.
the use of the term "the jews" in the accounts of Jesus' trial could be inflamitory when it was the religious leaders who incited the population to cry for crucifiction. the use of the word "mob" would have been more accurate since their religious/cultural affiliation had little to do with the outcome of the story. there also seems to be an effort to make the roman part in this innocent. but you know, this story to me is so deep and has implications on so many different levels that i really believe God's message comes through regardless of the extent that man's hands were on it.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 06:01 PM   #30
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta,GA,USA
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid
Thanks for the clarification, but you did originally say "scripture."
Exactly. The Scripture relating to the story of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Not the Scriptures as an overall.

Quote:
I am not sure that the Gospels deliberately promote anti-semitism, but when looked at within the context of Scripture it doesn't bode well for Christian claims of anti-semitism such as Jesus calling Jews dogs, devils, etc. I don't think the Gospels can be removed from Scripture when discussing the development of anti-semitism as it is disseminated through Christianity.

Brighid
What the Scriptures (overall) do is reject the previous superiority of the Jews, which had now become co-inheritors with the world.

Now, if we look to the Old Testament, then we would definately find why so many would seem to dislike or hate the Jews.
Milton is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.