The WP Strident Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^^

Well we can both play that game and please note how it gets us no where. The standard atheist argument entails taking quotes out of context and refusing anything except their own interpretation, even if it does not fit with the Bible, is contradicted in the OT (which yours was), does not fit within the main commandments and teachings set out and specifically identified by Jesus and demands an absolute literal interpretation. But yes, yours must be right.

As to your question, certain people are called to leave their family. They are people called to follow the Apostles path. Jesus also did the same. Not all however are called to follow this path. As to your statement that it is repeated over and again through out the NT, well in some form that is true. It is however hyperbole when Jesus is telling us to hate our family or cut off part of our body. The way in which one gets to this conclusion, is funnily enough, by reading the rest of the Bible. If the statement does not fit within the wider teachings under the interpretation that is attempting to be applied to it, then it is most likely incorrect. Hence why exegesis is the most powerful and most common way to discover Biblical truth. The interpretation that your post is attempting to use is one that meets the definition of eisegesis, an attempt to place ones own position within the text in spite of the wider context.

I wasn't mocking anything, merely pointing out that it was God's will that Jesus be crucified. This is the purported reason by Biblical standards for the sacrifice of Jesus. I didn't make that up. It's basic Christian dogma.

What is extraordinary to me is the concept that this mere exposition of the Christian belief that Jesus died to excuse the sin of Adam, which they proclaim quite openly, is suddenly some kind of atheist trick.

I haven't taken anything out of context. I haven't 'interpreted' anything; rather, I have accepted that the passages mean what they say.

If New- and Old-testament passages contradict each other, that's just further evidence that the book is not and never was the immortal, infalliable word of some all-knowing source of all morality.

Mijnheer is an interesting word. I'll add it to my collection. Thanks.


Correct. Not you specifically.


Having been a Christian, I am well aware of how much they influence. We can quibble over whether that means control or not. As for what Christians are concerned about, one need not ask; they are quite vociferous about their concerns.


Please rewrite this. It made absolutely no sense at all. Especially the first sentence.



I know damn well there isnt a damn thing you can do to abrogate false Christians claiming membership. But its not my(the atheists) problem: its yours(the Christian). Since this is not possible, their behaviour has to be considered a subset of your social group. This is the problem with Tensu's 'no true scotsman'. They are some part of you(again, your group), whether Tensu disowns them or not. The s**t they(the fake Christians) spread smears off on you. That is unfortunate.

George Alan Rekers isnt a hypocritical homosexual bigot because he is Christian. Hes a bigot because thats what he is. Likewise your post outlines that you understand that Stalin wasnt a murdering bastard because he was an atheist or a commie, or a democrat, or a coulda-been priest, He was a murdering bastard because he was Stalin. He likely started down that path long before entering seminary or meeting Lenin.

You'll notice we(atheists) dont claim entering seminary made him murderous(or even a tyrant). That would be unfair and unfounded. Likewise saying he killed in the name of atheism is stupid. He killed for the enjoyment of Joseph Stalin.

This is strident atheism? Arguing about the historical foundations of a single holy book when the earthshaking truth is that god never existed? Please...

I'm not sure if I am responsible for your remarks but I never claimed to be a strident atheist. I am merely a sympathetic creature trying to encourage my fellow humans to think clearly. The strident atheist thing has been foisted on me.

Right, the problem is that the Sanhedrin and crowd were called "the Jews" in John, which does suggest that some Christians did look at the matter this way. Thus making this not baseless. Your point about Acts also isn't that relevant. The Gospels were generally written in Gentile contexts and read by Gentile audiences, and the case is that these Gentiles were increasingly developing anti-Semitism, not that the Jews were.

Secondly, it is hard to deny that Pilate was presented in a very charitable light while the Jewish people were not. So, for Christians to take Pilate to be less responsible than the Jews based upon their own scripture isn't hard to swallow at all.


This still did not mean that Judas is not taken as having responsibility for the death of Christ, as the man by some account killed himself over the guilt that happened by Christ's death. This still did not mean that the Jews did not publicly take responsibility. This still did not mean that people lacked guilt for their parts in all that had happened.


Umm.... ok? Christ came with a message of forgiveness. That still does not mean that anti-semitic tendencies were not found in the text.

I read the article. I am really not persuaded that this idea is ridiculous. I am persuaded that you really really really don't want something like this to be considered possible or plausible, but my point is still going to rest on John putting all the Jews into one category "Jews", and Pilate being presented in the most charitable light as opposed to Jewish people who condemned Jesus. It must be remembered that there is reason to believe that the books of the Gospels were later writings in Gentile contexts, which means that for some of them, anti-Semitism would be a lot easier to get away with.

The problem is what does context mean in this case?

Context does not necessarily entail utter agreement with other parts of the OT, but rather it means context within the background of that society. Paul was tolerant towards Roman slavery. Even further, there is no real reason to expect the Bible to be perfectly consistent on any point it has. You might want it to be, but, the Bible was written by human actors.

Now, it may be the case that one message might modify another, but the problem is in trying to outright use messages to cover up other messages entirely.

Look, the conversation on that single holy book just entered this arena. It isn't the only thing of interest here, but rather the philosophical reasons why God never existed are also part of the overall argument.

That being said, how would you present your case?

Your contention relating to the use of the words 'the Jews' in John's Gospel is not supported. The crowd and the Sanhedrin are described in this way, but not in the manner you are alluding too. The actual views of the authors are viewable through a study of the original Greek:

The book of John uses the term 'the Jews' in Greek (ioudaiois) quite often (67 in plural form), . When talking about the Sanhedrin and the Jewish leaders the term is used, for example John 19:14. However it often means different things, depending on where it is used (see http://catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-Jews.htm). You mentioned Pilate, clearly you should have read the whole chapter; since when it does refer to him ioudaiois is used when he asks Christ 'Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?"', 18:33. In this particular section of the discussion ioudaiois is not used, instead agousin kaiapha is used (translated literally as 'they' and 'Caiaphas', but usually as the 'leaders' and only incorrectly to 'the Jews'. Then again in 18:35 ioudaiois is missing, instead the Greek states 'archiereis' 'paredōkan' (translated as 'Cheif Priests Delivered') not as 'the Jews'. In fact the next occasions where ioudaiois is used (18:33 & 35), it is in relation to the claim, that under the law of the Jews they had no basis for executing Christ and in relation to Christ being 'King of the Jews'. The Jews can hardly therefor be the ones being given the blame on this matter.

Also in order reach the conclusion that the Jews should be punished you need ignore Christ's own words in 18:36 'Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews (ioudaiois). But now my kingdom is from another place'. Christ is stating that he does not want his disciples to attack 'ioudaiois'.

I do not doubt that people have taken elements of this text out of context and the proper Christians in the past have not done enough to stop this, I just do not accept that the underlying basis of Christianity provides a basis for antisemitism. I have a major issue when people attempt to co-opt the text in order to justify prejudice and violence... much less organised pogroms and genocide. I also have a major problem when people state the opposite, attempting to pin the violence of such people on the beliefs of others, who believe no such thing and whose basic tenants never would never ground it. If you believe that Christians should have done more, then I wholly agree with you, we all ought to do more and ought to have done more, in relation to the first part, that at least applies to all of us.

Let's not to gel lost in the discussion. The whole argument only proves one thing - there is not a single thing called Christian morals, only different interpretation of different people.

I do not think it is a good idea to think that because there are multiple views on the subject that therefor no underlying truthful standard exists.

^^^

Then why people have different views? Do you think the crusaders know any less bible than you? It is delusional to think you have the true underlying standard.

I don't think I have the true underlying standard. I try to get my theology straight, I would however have a pretty solid argument against crusading if I ever met someone who thought it was a good idea.

On that note, I will attempt to leave this thread to those who created it.

I am not interested in these hair splitting exercises. However, I am interested in what is the objective basis for judging which interpretation is more correct? (Indeed, how do you define a correct interpretation?)

The process is called exegesis.