Member (Idle past 2 days)
Message 106 of 114 (601452)
01-20-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by iano
01-20-2011 3:08 AM
Re: Praise Be Unto His Child Murdering Glory
|IF the Jews killed Christ (per gospel account) |
That is an inaccurate account of what appears in the Gospels, where Romans kill Christ, with a greater or lesser degree of encouragement form Jews (depending on the book). You even lie about the content of the Bible.
Besides, it is fatuous to present the Gospels as a factual account when they disagree wildly over this very incident.
|You're back to belief vs. unbelief regarding the historicity of the account. Paul vs. you this time.|
No we are not. Paul includes comment in his letter, that goes beyond any historical account.
|Assuming Paul is basing his writing on fact, where's the hate-speech?|
Are you deliberately trying to get my goat? Because I had not taken you for a stupid man. Evil or sociopathic perhaps, but not stupid.
But okay, if that's how you want it, welcome to Hate Speech For Dummies;
2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
"The Jews". Here is perhaps the biggest problem. Paul talks about "the Jews" as if they were some sort of monolithic entity, all identical in their evil and depravity. This is patent anti-Semitism.
Hate speech is any speech that disparages a person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, etc. This way of referring to Jews as a homogeneous group of evildoers very clearly constitutes hate speech.
Jews are not some homogeneous evil cult. Jews are people, individuals, with opinions and thoughts of their own. Paul is trying to dehumanise them here, by referring to Jews en masse. This is a typical first step in any hate campaign. It is, for example, exactly the kind of language that Hitler used to dehumanise Jews in his time. It encourages people to view Jews as a hostile outsider, rather than as individuals. This is the first step in persecution.
Whatever foolishness you believe about the execution of Jesus, you must accept that "the Jews" are not responsible for his death. Some Jews might have been. Certain individual members of the Sanhedrin would bear responsibility (although they still did not kill him), certain individuals from amongst the crowd could be said to bear responsibility (although they did not kill him either), but to blame "the Jews" as a whole is false and hateful.
Even by the time Paul was writing, many of those who can even be suggested to have born responsibility would have died, yet Paul refers to "the Jews" in the present tense and blames them. None of those present at the trial would have been in Thessalonica, yet Paul writes as though there is no distinction between Jews who were there at the death of Christ and Jews who lived hundreds of miles away or had not even been born. This is hate speech.
Further, Paul could easily be damning the Romans in this way, since it would have been Roman soldiers and leaders who bore the most direct blame for Jesus' death, but he does not. Not politically expedient I suppose. This biased choice of target is again indicative of hate speech.
I ought not to have to explain to an adult living in a modern cosmopolitan nation, why it is wrong to judge all members of a religion or ethnic group by the actions of a historical subset of that group. It is called "prejudice". It is the backbone of racism, anti-Semitism and all other forms of prejudice. Prejudice is wrong iano. Of course, given your approval for collective punishment , I can see how this insight might have eluded you.
2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus,
That is an inaccurate portrayal of the Gospel accounts, nor did all Jews kill Christ, at most, only a handful can legitimately be blamed.
and their own prophets,
Not sure what he's referring to here, but again, the same principle applies. He cannot blame all the Jews, only a handful at most, but he just smears all Jews with the crime of killing their prophets, as though they were all in on it. that is hate speech.
and have persecuted us
Selective bias. Paul attempts to make much of this, even though he could easily note that one of those responsible for this persecution was himself. Again though, not all Jews can be blamed for the actions of a subset. That is hate speech.
and they please not God, and are contrary to all men
Again, we see Paul damn an entire religious/ethnic group.
This is what I mean by comment. There is nothing historical here, This is written in the present tense.
The phrase "contrary to all men" is particularly telling. It is a textbook example of the dehumanisation of the hated outsider, a standard tactic in racial hatred and other forms of prejudice.
2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always
Jews are all treated as being sinners to the maximum possible degree. All this because a tiny subsection of Jews, in another place and time, are accused of doing wrong. This is an especially clear case of anti-Semitism. Jews who had not even been born when Jesus was killed can bear no responsibility, but Paul tars all Jews with the "sinner" brush, even to the extent that Jews are considered sinners to the maximum degree.
for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
And we finish off with a non-specific threat. Jews apparently receive the uttermost wrath. Not murderers, or rapists, not those few actually responsible for the death of Christ, but Jews.
Any Jew reading that, especially one in a Nazi concentration camp, would be rightly appalled. It is only to easy to see why the God of the NT isn't the salve you seem to think it is; the NT portrays wrath against Jews in a favourable light. Far from being a comfort to Jews in their suffering, this filth portrays their suffering as being in accordance with God's plans.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 98 by iano, posted 01-20-2011 3:08 AM|| ||iano has not yet responded|
Message 113 of 114 (602568)
01-28-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by iano
01-20-2011 4:28 AM
| It's just that your argument appears to be built on a version of benevolence suggestive of only-benevolence, i.e. wrath and benevolence are mutually exclusive.|
Well, they are. To whatever extent God is wrathful, it's only as a failure to be benevolent.
|I seriously doubt that your version of benevolence is the utilised in theodicies involving the biblical God.|
I doubt it as well, simply because the Biblical God is incompatible with theodicies.
|The choice to do evil needs to terminate in deed in order for that choice to be properly and fully registered as such.|
So there's no such thing as an attempted sin? That clearly can't be the case; when a credible threat emerges against your life, for instance, the police hardly put their feet up and claim they can't do anything about it until they actually succeed in killing you.
Moreover your position is anti-Biblical:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Clearly the Bible views the intent to sin as precisely the same as the sin itself - you don't get any credit with God for having the intent to sin but not the opportunity, so there's no reason not to expect a benevolent, just God to intervene and prevent the commission of immoral actions after human beings have exercised their free choice to make immoral decisions.
|The penalties for murder being other than those applying to conspiracy to murder.|
I don't know what it's like in Ireland but in the US the penalties are, in fact, the same - attempted murder has the same penalty as murder.
| The bible makes clear that God does intervene in wordly affairs - but that's not the same as him being required to intervene to prevent all evil all the time.|
No, his benevolent and just nature, supposedly, would result in him being required to intervene against evil at all times. Every single time, because he can intervene every single time.
There's no intervention by God because there is no God (in my case) or because God is not benevolent and just (your case.)
| That purpose is the issue of each individuals salvation.|
And can the dead be saved? If your God's most important purpose is the salvation of individuals then he should be forstalling murders simply to give people the greatest possible opportunity for salvation. But instead we see the deaths of children, frequently the violent deaths of children, well before they've had any opportunity at all for salvation.
| Positioned thus, to come Israels aid in time of famine.|
How much better would it have been, though, to have no famine at all nor evil actions by the brothers of Joseph!
| What I intended to describe as "nonsense" was the notion that Christians involved in the theodicy debate didn't know their bibles.|
Well, you frequently don't seem to. I mean, you made an argument directly at odds with the clear meaning Matthew 5. Perhaps the learned theologians you refer to are better Biblical scholars than you, but for the most part, they just disregard the parts that they can't reconcile with a benevolent God.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 99 by iano, posted 01-20-2011 4:28 AM|| ||iano has not yet responded|