The WP Strident Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Mijnheer Fuzzy:

I am going to assume you are not talking to me personally, because you cannot possibly have the impression that I am World Dictator or even Police Chief in your town. And of course you would not be saying that I personally am "maddeningly unconcerned", since you are not referencing anything I said that might support that.

No, you have to be talking about "You = Christians in General". And you have to be talking through your hat, because surely you must know that Christians do not control all that much and that nobody bothers to find out what Christians are concerned about.

There was a time when in certain places where people who spoke in the name of Christianity without being there could get in trouble. Yes. Funny, most people outside the Church - upper case, please, I mean the Universal Church Militant - are glad those days are past.

Suppose for a second that Joseph Stalin gets a degree in Econ and runs for mayor of Podunk on the Democratic ticket.

THIS IS NOT A SLUR ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I am assuming that Mr Dzugashvili would figure he was more likely to get in as a Deomcrat.

He is strong, charismatic, energetic. He makes it to Presidential nominee. Actually, at LEAST he is not wishywashy like most nominees these years. And he is precisely Stalin. He is elected president with Dolph Schickelgruber as vice.

I will do YOU the courtesy of trusting that a lot of True Democrats [not that I am clear on what Dem or GOP ideology may be, but I have known people I would trust who have a genuine ideology] will deplore the election of Dzug and Dolph and their statist agenda.

And HOW would those true Democrats prevent this or do anything about it?

Updated list:
Awesomelyglorious
Fuzzy
skafather84
Sand
Master_Pedant
DentArthurDent
Exclavius
Ergo Proxy
manifoldrob
Cheeseroyale34
LKL
MONKEY
Bethie
just_ben
MasterJedi
01001011
Vince
Sonariah

I prefer not to post here, I would like this to be a place where the forum's atheists can chat amongst themselves.

You have however severely misinterpreted and misrepresented the thing that you are trying to talk authoritatively about.

Sure, but one should view the OT through the prism of the sacrifice and teaching of Christ.



This is ridiculous. Are you really complaining that a book written mostly by Jews is prejudice against Jews?



Its interesting how quickly people complain about the rules in the Bible. I don't think it has specifically to do with the rules themselves, just the idea that something can be placed higher than the complainer seems to be enough to set people off. As to the specifics, selecting a jumbling of random verses, presenting them out of context and the stating that these are the basic reflection of the values presented smacks of the kind of case a political-commissar would make. In order to reach the interpretation that you have, one must go past the second most important commandment, Mat 22:39 'And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself', this is followed up in Mat 22:40, 'On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets'.




I think the blindness is to the actual law relating to slavery.

Ex 21:16 'And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'

The Bible has rules that govern the practice of slavery, it no where condones it (except in the case of the Canaanites, but that is another matter). The Bible also has rules and regulations relating to the practice of money lending, but that does not mean it condones going into massive debt. It also states that good Christians should pay their taxes but it does not condone taxing Christians extra for being Christian.



So let me get this straight. The Bible condemns the people it states are living immoral lives....

No, it is serious. I can literally pull out a dozen more quotes from the NEW testament if you don't believe me; by the time the new testament was written, the writers did not consider themselves a part of the Jewish culture anymore even if they did start out as ethnically Jewish (which many of them did not).


Firstly, it's about tone and not rules. Secondly, if I've taken those out of context - if those passages don't mean that one should place the supernatural realm above one's own family - please feel free to correct me. I don't think that context helps, however; I generally read the entire passage as I was pulling citations for this.


I was limited by Tensu to the New Testament. However, let's take a look at Exodus 21, since you brought it up:

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
...
21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
...
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Now who's taking things out of context?


*snort*

So, yeah: slavery only in moderation.


Yes. The bible condemns as 'immoral' anyone who was born homosexual and who wants to have a consentual, loving relationship with another adult of the same sex. It says, in fact, that people should be killed for this. The bible also condemns anyone who practices freedom of conscience and does not believe it, saying that God will turn their hearts and make them practice 'abominable' things. The Bible also condemns those of other religions.
Ecumenical, it ain't. Tolerant, it ain't.
Love your neighbor, sure - as long as he isn't atheist, or gay, or of some religion other than yours.

here's another one on Christians and the environment.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE[/youtube]

Rubbish, absolute rubbish.

St. Paul during his travels actually made sure that Timothy was circumcised. His view was that it was necessary for Timothy to live at peace among the Jews. Paul however, objected to the requirement of circumcision as a requirement for being saved. Most of the NT was written by Paul who was a Jew and almost all of the teachings on the subject come from him. Jesus specifically rebukes antisemitism in Lk 9:52-56.



They do argue for this. People should be prepared to leave things behind in order to follow God's calling. Its kind of like people who love their country but cannot accept that rights also come with responsibilities, like paying taxes and serving in the military. I think you have actually confirmed my supposition that its the idea of authority that most people resist rather than the rules themselves.



These are OT laws relating to family and slavery. The OT has laws relating to the practice of slavery (most laws in the OT actually limit the power of the master rather than restrict the servant, but the servant has obligations also), but like I said, it does not mean that it is condoned. In the ancient world people sold themselves into slavery to escape appalling conditions, the OT recognizes this and provides legal protection for such people. People taken into slavery against their will was TOTALLY prohibited.



Love you neighbor regardless, it does not mean that one must accept or support decisions that are immoral.

Reject the sin, not the sinner.

ruveyn

91, YOU brought up the Old Testament rules for slavery in response to New Testament rules that I had posted previously. You deliberately cited one passage out of context in order to give the impression that the Old Testament did not support slavery.

The passages that I cited do not say that one should 'sacrifice things' for one's faith or one's country; they clearly say that one should hate and abandon one's family. There's a big difference between things and family, and there's a big difference between sacrifice and hatred.

Finally, it's pretty f*****g hard to 'love' your neighbor while simultaneously stoning him to death for being gay.

the bible is a baited hook with a thousand barbs, and you, having swallowed the thing whole, are now thrashing around trying to escape while simultaneously claiming that it does not affect your stomach at all.

Not really "absolute rubbish". While Paul was a major author of the NT, the Gospels were generally written by Gentiles, and the Gospel of John is noted for being relatively anti-semitic in that it applied the label "the Jews" to the Jewish enemies of Christ. However, it is also seen in Matthew that the Jewish people generally are given as responsible for the death of Christ, as his blood is on them and their children.

This issue has actually received academic note, so... I don't think it is something to dismiss outright, especially since there is no reason to believe that the Christian text has one voice.

And beyond that, the fundamental dogma of the crucifixion of Christ is a vitally basic function of all of Christianity. Christ's sacrifice was necessary for the establishment of Christianity as that death was God's gift to mankind to relieve it of Adam's sin. Without Christ's death there is no reason for Christianity. If the Jews were responsible, they were only complying with God's will.

@LKL

I don't actually have a problem with the OT laws, the ritual laws in particular that you seem to have issue with do not apply to people in relation to salvation and do not apply to Gentiles. As to the statements relating to hate and abandon your family, I think you should recognize hyperbole when you encounter it. Christ ofter used hyperbole; Mat 5:30 'And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. Christ is not literally telling you to cut off part of your body, neither is the passage you listed encouraging you to hate your family.

@AG

The fact that it has received academic note is not really surprising, it just makes it published rubbish. For example Prof. Cook on his work on the subject listed 'excessive love' within Christianity as proof of its antisemitism.

@Sand

Well said.

Well, ok, but I've actually heard of it, and here's the list:

1) The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide
2) The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus
3) Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for Gentiles instead
4) The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a new covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5) The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6) The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7) By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8 ) Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9) Christianity emphasizes excessive love, while Judaism maintains a balance of justice, God of wrath and love of peace
10) Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

I see evidence of point 1, 6, 8 and 10 in the NT as clear themes. You might say that this is just "published nonsense", but the existence of anti-semitic tension within the Gospels is not outside of the mainstream concern. I don't think that your dismissal really is that powerful, because you are trying to dismiss a claim made from the Gospels by appealing to Paul, another author. As well, Luke 9:52-56 isn't an explicit rebuke, but rather it is more deeply interpretive. Even further, I don't see why your opponents have to assume that the Gospels are internally consistent, that is that we can argue whether a claim is made in a passage, but we cannot argue that a claim is never made without addressing every single passage. I think most who argue the anti-semitism claim HAVE TO admit to mixed signals though.

That being said, Sand's comment doesn't seem like the height of theology to me. We might as well argue that Judas was also good with God as he was also needed, but Judas dies in a manner suggesting his moral guilt, even further there are explicit passages suggesting that Judas is a horrible being. Mark 14:1, Matt 26:24 I think that Sand's basic reasoning can be used to mock any case of divine fore-ordination, even Pharaoh, and even probably anybody really given that classical theism's commitment to perfect foreknowledge entails that all actions were in some sense planned in advance by God.

^^^^

I don't think I am simply referring to Paul. I will however deal with Prof. Cook point by point.

1) The fact that it was a specific set of Roman Soldiers, a Governor and court does not mean that those specific groups are any more responsible. The fact is that the wager of sin is death, for everyone, our sins by their nature make us guilty before God. In order for Cook to reach this conclusion it requires an acceptance of an underlying point... this is a common theme in his work. If this sort of logic was to be taken to its reasonable conclusion I would have equal grounds for hating Peter for denying Christ three times.

2) The person who states this is on VERY shaky theological ground. Is it true that God does punish, yes, does it follow that we know who he is punishing and that a specific action can be attributed, no. The more steady ground is one of forgiveness and tolerance, for God calls for these things as a basic foundation.

3) Fail. Jesus came first to the Jews, it was only much later, during Acts and after the revelation of Pentecost that the message was widened to include the Gentiles.

4) See point three.

5) We are all disloyal towards God, on these grounds once again this would be as much of a ground for ant-peterism than it would be for antisemitism.

6) See point 1

7) Subjective judgement and not supported or provable within the material from the time.

8) Compared to what? Also, see point 7

9) Rubbish

10) Christ was preaching against the Pharisees, a group of thought within Judaism, this was based on their doctrine, not their race, much less a basis for prejudice against all Jews.

Except for the fact that the Christian scripture goes out of its way to exonerate Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate sees that Jesus is innocent, but the Jews press him to punish. Pontius Pilate tries to get Jesus off the hook by letting either he or a murderer go free, but the Jews pick the murderer Barbaras. Pontius Pilate says that the death of Christ will be on the hands of the Jews, and they say that it will be on them and their children.

I mean, the point that the Jews were singled out for blame is very scripturally clear.

As for your point about sins.... um... irrelevant. It does not address whether or not the Jews are in the narrative held culpable for deicide. In that narrative the Jews clearly are given most of the blame.



I addressed point 1. I agree that both are closely related.


To Christian beliefs. The notion that Jewish legalism is restrictive is found throughout criticism of the Pharisees and is implicit in the development of Christian theological ideas.


Right, but the modern rabbinic tradition is often considered to be descended more so from the Pharisees. Even further, Jewishness isn't just so clearly a matter of race.

1) The first seems to revolve around the point you are making that the Bible alots the Jews a greater portion of the blame for the crucifixion of Christ.

The only way this argument makes any sense is if:

a. One takes the Sanhedrin or the crowd to be 'the Jews', which is not the case if one also considers the fact that Christ and his disciples are at this point also Jewish. Thousands of Jews are described as being followers of Jesus ,see Acts 21: 20. The distinction is baseless.
b. One takes the statement of Pilate to be the view that Christians should have, above all other teachings. There is no basis for thinking that this is the case.


2. Christ willingly took responsibility for his life:

“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:17-18)

“Adonai was pleased to crush Him (the Messiah), putting Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10)

Also see, John 3:16 and Romans 5:6-8


3. Christ forgives those who killed him (most Biblical scholars believe he was talking about everyone):

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

Also, please read this article by a Rabbi on the subject: http://www.shema.com/articles/articles-050.php

Funny how the Christian argument always goes:
1)There's nothing in the bible that says what you accuse it of saying.
2)Ok, well, that's in the Old Testament and not the New Testament. Jesus says we don't have to obey the old rules.
3)Ok, Jesus says we have to obey some of the old rules, but, well, you're taking it out of context.
4)Ok, well, it's allegorical.

You're stuck on #2, despite the fact that I started out with the New Testament and only switched to the Old Testament because YOU brought it up (out of context) to defend against the New Testament passages that I had cited.

The idea to hate and abandon one's parents and family occurrs multiple times, in multiple chapters of the New Testament. If it was only allegorical, why did multiple writers keep on hammering it in over and over?