Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

And some 470 years later they committed their most wicked act, in murdering their Messiah. That generation filled their wickedness to the full and God sent the Romans under Titus to destroy their temple, city and nation. They were exiled among the Gentiles until recently and the majority are still unrepentant.

You been reading Stormfront again? Do you actually know any Jews, actually you probably do and don't even know it, good job for them I'd think.

Firstly as a devout Christian who killed Jesus should be irrelevant. If you're a Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, you'd have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them.
I'd suggest you started to get a bit "Righteous" yourself.


Secondly, is your statement very politically sensitive to say the least. The accusation of "Christ-killer" was used as justification for isolating, robbing, torturing, and murdering Jews. It's only in recent times--the last fifty years, --that leading Christian authorities have reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged the injustices of the past 2,000 years.

Again get with the program and try a bit of that ol' "Righteousness".

There is no historical record of the condemnation of Jesus other than the New Testament. The different books give five slightly different accounts. They agree on the main points but the details vary. The authors of the gospels weren't writing objective history; they were trying to convert a particular audience, and their words reflect that.

Incedentially, the high priest Caiaphas could not order an execution, he could only recommend one. Crucifixion was not a punishment permitted under Jewish law. Jewish law permitted capital punishment, but the legal requirements were extremely stringent, so that the death penalty was very rarely (if ever) enforced during Second Temple times. Jewish Law allowed only four kinds of execution, and none involved anything as lingering and tortuous as crucifixion. On the other hand, the Romans executed people for minor infractions, and crucifixion as a method of execution was a popular Roman entertainment.

To summarize, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot.

So I'd suggest you cop on- frankly I think you are inches away from incitement to hate by posting rubbish like that.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I think anyone who things they know something with complete certainty is kidding themselves.

... but I could be wrong

Glad you admit it. It is with that possibility in mind that I appeal to you in all our debates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can understand why an unbeliever might think so - he has not experienced the reality. But he has to account for the amazing complexity and order in the universe, as well as the witness of his conscience to both his significance and his sinfulness.

Well no he doesn't. Your religion doesn't become the default correct truth simply because someone hasn't another idea.

It is not the default truth, but it has certainly shut the mouth of that unbeliever - as you say, he hasn't another idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
These are examples of non-design?
There are examples of non-intelligent design (evolution is a design process).

Excellent progress, Wickie. I'll make sure this light gets to the Creation thread.

You are an example of non-intelligent design. I know you find that idea insulting to your ego, but there you go.

More insulting to my intelligence, that the incredible complexity and design we see just naturally arose from (not to go back too far) the atoms that make up the stars.

The lottery is not designed to produce a winner. It is a completely random process, and in fact the organizers are hoping there won't be a winner.

Really? You think they have a business plan that includes no one ever winning? If I were them I would want a winner/s every week, or at least every few weeks. You think the punters are really only interested in giving to charity?

But then again you are missing the point of my analogy. The odds that a single individual will win the lottery are ridiculously small. But that doesn't infer that when an individual person does win the lottery they win because of someone picked them for a reason.

My point was that such a win (the beginning of life) in a purely materialist universe is beyond any reasonable chance. You said the same is true for any particular person winning the lotterry, but someone has to win it. I responded by saying the lottery is designed to give that outcome - but the universe, by your materialist understanding, is not. So being alive and debating here is strong evidence that life was designed to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is one interpretation of the fact of the universality of religious demands - manipulation by crafty men. But if the universe does have meaning and does have a spiritual dimension, then this idea must also have at least the same weight

Ah the old if God exists then God exists argument. Q.E.D

No, just pointing out the other possibility is just as likely, by your own reasoning.

There is no reason to believe the latter when the former explains religion and explains why would you say your post.

There are other reasons that can be offered, but I was showing why the latter was just as logical.

It is like saying that just because all pyramid schemes are cons doesn't mine this new pyramid scheme is a con, it just means that the wonderful idea of my new pyramid scheme has trickled down to the others.

Not a very convincing argument.

The flaw in your argument is that you presuppose all are pyramid schemes.

The actual logical argument is just because all other philosophies are cons doesn't mine this new philosophy is a con, it just means that the wonderful idea of my new philosophy has appealed to the others.

Exactly, that you for making my point. No religion that said "You don't need us" would last 5 minutes.

So, amazingly!, you don't find any religion that lasts more than 5 minutes that says "You don't need us". They all claim that you need their particular religion. Because the purpose of a religion is to continue to exist.

It's a silly argument you use. Like a doctor saying you don't have to take the insulin to keep well, and then claiming he is an enlightened medic. The doctor is supposed to prescribe the correct medicine and warn you of the need to take it. Religion is the same - it offers healing for the soul. Why would they say "You don't need us"?

Whether the religion is true or false, they are at least being logical when they call for obedience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You can get the good version by simply turning from your sins and trusting in God - no prior works required. When you do that He will give you strength to live for Him and do all the good works you ought to do.
As I said, all I have to do to avoid eternal torture in hell is to do join your religion.

Wow, what are the odds. It isn't give 5 euro to a charity. It isn't clean my teeth every day. It isn't raise my children well. It is join your religion, believe in your god and your dogma.

It is almost as if your religion is interested in self-propagation of the ideas of your religion.

So all I have to do is take the insulin? Come on, there are many other healers out there who tell me it is not diabetes causing my symptoms. Why can't I just take more exercise, drink more water, get more sleep?

It's almost as if your profession is interested in self-propagation of the ideas of your profession.
Religion and the Medical profession both debunked by your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
True. But that doesn't mean the religion is necessarily wrong.
No. But it very strongly suggests it.

Only to your prejudiced mind. The same would apply if in fact the religion was right.

The point isn't that there is a stick and a carrot. As you say a lot of secular systems work like this. The point is that there is a stick and a carrot to get people to join/accept the religion.

Yes, and my point is what's wrong with that? Do you not accept man is prone to reject what is immediately inconvenient for him, and so needs encouragement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll happily stick with my 'delusion' of identity as a spirit and body.
And it is because of that why religion continues to exist and propagate.

People want religion, in the same way people want to believe in pyramid schemes or that they might win the lottery each week (even though the odds are far more likely you will get hit by a car).

Yes, man is aware of eternity and wants to get there and be happy in it. It's just that he does not like the only true way to do so.

And the religions are all there to take advantage of this desire.

I agree. The desire for a loving mate is catered for by marriage. Single men and women take advantage of this desire in the opposite sex to find a spouse. But prostitutes also take advantage of this desire, and leave their clients with a very inferior product. Doesn't prove that marriage is just the same as prostitution.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And some 470 years later they committed their most wicked act, in murdering their Messiah. That generation filled their wickedness to the full and God sent the Romans under Titus to destroy their temple, city and nation. They were exiled among the Gentiles until recently and the majority are still unrepentant.
You been reading Stormfront again? Do you actually know any Jews, actually you probably do and don't even know it, good job for them I'd think.

Yes, I know some Jews. Mostly fine Christian ones. But I've conversed on friendly terms with others too.

Firstly as a devout Christian who killed Jesus should be irrelevant.

Irrevelant to what?

If you're a Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not blaming anyone, just telling you what Jesus and the apostles said.

If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, you'd have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them.
I'd suggest you started to get a bit "Righteous" yourself.

I take the Biblical line on it - they meant it for evil, God meant it for good. It's God I thank for Messiah's death.

Secondly, the question is politically sensitive, to say the least. The accusation of "Christ-killer" was used as justification for isolating, robbing, torturing, and murdering Jews. It's only in recent times--the last fifty years, --that leading Christian authorities have reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged the injustices of the past 2,000 years.

Again get with the program and try a bit of that ol' "Righteousness".

Such evil actions against the Jews were totally opposed to the teaching of the apostles. It was the spirit of this world that motivated it, not the Holy Spirit. The idea that we should kill or harm those who differ from us in religion forgets what Christ and the apostles told us about the nature of His kingdom - it is not of this world, and the Church has no role in punishing the unbelievers. Not only Jews, but 'heretics' of all descriptions suffered under the influence of this evil doctrine.

Christians are to love and care for all men. They are to try to win them to Christ by preaching the gospel to them, but never by intimidation or violence.

There is no historical record of the condemnation of Jesus other than the New Testament. The different books give five slightly different accounts. They agree on the main points but the details vary. The authors of the gospels weren't writing objective history; they were trying to convert a particular audience, and their words reflect that.

I dispute the suggestion that they erred in their accounts, but I agree that they gave their own perspectives.

Incedentially, the high priest Caiaphas could not order an execution, he could only recommend one. Crucifixion was not a punishment permitted under Jewish law. Jewish law permitted capital punishment, but the legal requirements were extremely stringent, so that the death penalty was very rarely (if ever) enforced during Second Temple times. Jewish Law allowed only four kinds of execution, and none involved anything as lingering and tortuous as crucifixion. On the other hand, the Romans executed people for minor infractions, and crucifixion as a method of execution was a popular Roman entertainment.

Yes, that is what the gospels explain - that the Jewish rulers took Him to Pilate because they could not lawfully execute Him. They persuaded Pilate to do their dirty work for them.

To summarize, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot.

Not according to the Bible. It has it that Pilate reluctantly agreed to crucify Jesus, in the face of the Jewish ruler's accusation that to spare Him would be an act of disloyalty to Caesar.

So I'd suggest you cop on- frankly I think you are inches away from incitement to hate by posting rubbish like that.

I'll excuse that outrageous slur because you are obviously ignorant of the New Testament writings. Here are a few relevant ones to inform your analysis:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it...
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. 14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses... 17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.

Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Acts 5: 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.”

Acts 13:27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28 And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

It's late, so I'll make that do. You'll find enough there to see how all mankind shares in the guilt of Christ's death - Gentile and Jew - but the same offence is more grievious in the one who should know better. On them the stricter judgement falls.

But as I said in my post, God has a merciful purpose toward Israel - their conversion and addition to His Church. Down the ages a remnant experienced this, but one day all the Jews then living will be converted.

Far from being anti-semitic, the true Church is first of all Jewish. Gentiles like myself are brought into the commonwealth of Israel and become fellow heirs with believing Israel:
Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.


14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are imposing on God - the Creator and owner of all these lives - conditions appropriate only for their peers.

No, I'm not. The conditions are not only appropriate for their peers. That is a skewed way of viewing morality.

Genocide is not wrong because the person carrying it out does not have the appropriate authority to carry it out.

It is wrong based on the effect it has on the people who are being killed. That effect does not change because God is carrying out the action or a Rwanda general. The men women and children still suffer the same.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out above, you see this as horrific only because you refuse to acknowledge God and His right to judge sinful man.

Well yes, that is the point.

I refuse to acknowledge that God has the right to genocide a people, because he doesn't.
I refuse to acknowledge that God has the right to torture and kill infants. Because he doesn't.
I refuse to acknowledge that God has the right to present women to the Hebrews to be forced into sex slavery. Because he doesn't.

Your assert that God can do what ever he likes, no matter how immoral, simply because he created us is ridiculous. You would not apply that to any other act of creation. You would say a father can rape his daughter because he created her. You would say a mother can drown her infant because she created him.

The act of creating something has nothing to do with the morality of inflicting suffering on that thing.

The authority of the person drowning the infant has nothing to do with the suffering of the infant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sin is primarily an offence against God, even when it is committed against our fellowman.

Considering God is un-offendable, that is a pretty weak argument.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because Moloch was an idol, Jehovah is the true God - and the owner of all life. When He decides to end our lives is up to Him.

The effect on the children is the same. Basically you are saying that that is irrelevant.

That is not a concept of morality I subscribe to.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Glad you admit it. It is with that possibility in mind that I appeal to you in all our debates.

As someone who claims to know with certainty that God has influenced his heart, that is a bit of a hollow appeal there Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote: »

More insulting to my intelligence, that the incredible complexity and design we see just naturally arose from (not to go back too far) the atoms that make up the stars.

I'm not sure how that statement can insult your intelligence when you admit to not understanding most of the science that is relevant to the discussion of Biological Evolution (for that you seemingly turn to JC).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? You think they have a business plan that includes no one ever winning?

I think they have a business plan where whether or not someone wins the lottery is completely random. The process is not designed to produce a winner, it is designed to produce the numbers. Whether or not the numbers match a bought ticket, thus producing a winner, is random and irrelevant to the business plan.

That is why the price goes up and down each week. It is set by the number of tickets bought. If only 5 people played the Lotto each week the price would be about 3 euro and no one would ever win it. But the business plan would continue exactly the same.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I were them I would want a winner/s every week, or at least every few weeks. You think the punters are really only interested in giving to charity?

I think the punters who play the Lottery have about as much understanding of statistics as your average Creationist, and have very little idea about the odds of them actually winning. Like religion, playing the lottery is more about a warm fuzzy feeling one gets thinking about what it would be like if it were true, rather than actual reality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point was that such a win (the beginning of life) in a purely materialist universe is beyond any reasonable chance.

Not really. There are approx 100 billion billion stars in the universe (probably much more).

Even if the first forms of self-replicating molecules appear in a solar system are 100 billion to one that still means life has probably appeared at least a billion times in this universe alone.

Or to put it another way, if the odds of life appearing in a solar system are 100 billion billion to 1 life will appear on average once in a universe. Possibly more.

So, what are the odds that a planet will produce the chemical conditions necessary for self replicating molecules (not proteins mind, before you start quoting JC's nonsense about worse odds than every electron in the universe)?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You said the same is true for any particular person winning the lotterry, but someone has to win it.

No, someone doesn't have to win (what lottery have you been playing??).

Someone only has to win if every combination of ticket is bought. But you will notice that someone can and often does win even if not every ticket combination is bought.

So again that brings us back to the odds of life appearing and the size of the universe. If the odds of life appearing in a solar system are less than 100 billion billion then life should appear in our universe. If the odds are higher then life might not appear. But life might appear, just like someone can still win the lottery even if not every ticket combination has been bought.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, just pointing out the other possibility is just as likely, by your own reasoning.

It only becomes more likely if you assume the position you are arguing for. Which is silly circular reasoning.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The flaw in your argument is that you presuppose all are pyramid schemes.

No I don't, read my post again. I assume all the others are pyramid schemes, and then use that when assessing the likelihood of this one being a pyramid scheme.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The actual logical argument is just because all other philosophies are cons doesn't mine this new philosophy is a con, it just means that the wonderful idea of my new philosophy has appealed to the others.

That assumes that Christianity some how came first and inspired all other fake religions. Which isn't true. In fact under that logic it is even more unlikely that Christianity is real because it is so similar to religions that have gone before and therefore is probably the religion that is being inspired by the true previous religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Like a doctor saying you don't have to take the insulin to keep well, and then claiming he is an enlightened medic. The doctor is supposed to prescribe the correct medicine and warn you of the need to take it. Religion is the same - it offers healing for the soul. Why would they say "You don't need us"?

Bad analogy because your religion isn't "prescribing insulin". It is more like the doctor saying you need to keep coming to me, and only me, all the other doctors are wrong and in fact you will end up being tortured to death by them if you go to them. I'm the only one that can save you!

And if any doctor said that to me I would very suspicious. It isn't that your religion is saying that people can improve their lives. It is that they are saying people can improve their lives only by embracing this particular religion. Are you a wonderful Buddist who has helped thousands around the world. Well you're probably going to hell. Are you a kind and caring atheist who has save the lives of thousands of children working in the poorest countries in the world. Well you aren't a member of the religion, you're probably going to hell. etc etc

By your own admission being good is irrelevant to being saved. Why is that? Well because a person can be good without being a member of your religion. And if your religion simply taught that people should be good it wouldn't last very long. So it needs something that only membership of the religion can provide. Otherwise it would not last as a religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and my point is what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that it isn't reality. It is a form of manipulation, the purpose being not the improvement of the lives of people but the self-perpetual nature of your religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, man is aware of eternity and wants to get there and be happy in it. It's just that he does not like the only true way to do so.

Or as I would put it, man is aware that he has a strong instinctive fear of dying, and this fear allows him to be manipulated by groups and organizations that promise salvation from this fear, but only if they join the religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Doesn't prove that marriage is just the same as prostitution.

Er, ok. A better analogy would be between religion and advertising. Both manipulate the instinctive fears and desires of humans to get them to act and behave in a certain manner.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The genocide was not a sin - it was commanded by God, as were the sanctions on the other nations.

The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch; and homosexuality and bestiality.

This is the part that does cause a fair bit of disagreement and certainly I find the atheist view inconsistant

For argument sake if the bible had a racy story like Sawney Bean in the link I think your views would be somewhat different but as it is the story is very concise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean

Rather than taking it as a genocide thing purely - you are really talking about an ethical situation. Ethics are less clear cut than morals - a decision may be moral or legal but not ethical and vice versa.

If good old Sawney & Family were substituted then the obligation could be seen differently. From an ethical point of view it would be important to put a stop to the practices to protect ones tribe.You are also talking about desert communities with scarce resourses and not the facilities to take prisoners.


We are after all talking about a nomadic people with little resouces to hold prisoners and if the Canaanites looked at others as a convenient source of food when times were hard.

Well ethically the decision could very well be ethical as it was for the common good. More like dealing with Ted Bundy the serial killer than Al Bundy from Married with Children.

So I dont think the messaage here is justifying genocide at all more tackling an ethical situation in the interests of self preservation.

Sometimes ethics is the lesser of th evils. I would look at it that way.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I know some Jews. Mostly fine Christian ones. But I've conversed on friendly terms with others too.

What do you mean by fine Christian Jews?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Irrevelant to what?

Irrevelant to the political devices that had him executed. Or at least to the rest of the Jewish people who had no involvement in the process.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not blaming anyone, just telling you what Jesus and the apostles said.

You're telling me what the Bible says. The Bible was written to spread the word of Christianity. History is always told from the victors point of view an' all that... Or if you like the difference between inerrancy and leaving stuff out.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take the Biblical line on it - they meant it for evil, God meant it for good. It's God I thank for Messiah's death.

Personally I'd drop god from the equation all together and give thanks for the the Christ's example instead.

As far as I can see they used it as a way to remove a political and perhaps theological threat. He was up against the leaders of Gods choosen people after all. Whether it was his pretensions to the Davidic line or as the messiah or as an incarnation of god himself which offered the most threat is debatable. They didn't have the historical reference of the new testament after all.

Evil would seem like a relative thing in this context though I guess they didn't realise the gravity of their situation! *ironic smiley*

wolfsbane wrote: »

Such evil actions against the Jews were totally opposed to the teaching of the apostles. It was the spirit of this world that motivated it, not the Holy Spirit. The idea that we should kill or harm those who differ from us in religion forgets what Christ and the apostles told us about the nature of His kingdom - it is not of this world, and the Church has no role in punishing the unbelievers. Not only Jews, but 'heretics' of all descriptions suffered under the influence of this evil doctrine.

I've never been able to comprehend this jump in attitude from 1st Testament God sanctioned genocide toward the rise of the Jewish peoples to Christ's teachings. Did god change his mind?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is what the gospels explain - that the Jewish rulers took Him to Pilate because they could not lawfully execute Him. They persuaded Pilate to do their dirty work for them.

Yes to punish him for his heresy if you will. Acts 2 as you quoted defends Jesus' position as to his or his followers claim to the house of David. There's no reference to the Jewish rulers argument or does that not matter?

The Jewish leaders would have been very aware of the Roman reaction to such a person as Jesus if he had gained popularity like the Bible says. They had a "peaceful" situation with Rome and Jesus threatened to unbalance that, so I'd guess they delayed the inevitable for a while.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll excuse that outrageous slur because you are obviously ignorant of the New Testament writings. Here are a few relevant ones to inform your analysis:

Well no I can't quote chapter and verse, but like yourself I do have an interest in the history of the times and the region. Well perhaps a little later really. Chapter and a line index would be sufficient though, unless you want to illustrate some of the language. There is a copy lying around the house along with a few history books, a Qur'an, Sufi poetry and an antology of the Vedas, they all share the same shelf metaphorically speaking.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But as I said in my post, God has a merciful purpose toward Israel - their conversion and addition to His Church. Down the ages a remnant experienced this, but one day all the Jews then living will be converted.

So all Jews and others are to be converted to what Catholics? Baptists? Born Again?
And if they don't want to? Then what?

The one-sidedness of your point of view and your use of adjectives like "dirty work", evil regarding the happenings of the time is patronizing at best.

Anyway this is getting quite far enough away from Darwin's apology, or should I say the churches apology, or anyones apology for that matter.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

Anyway this is getting quite far enough away from Darwin's apology, or should I say the churches apology, or anyones apology for that matter.

I agree - I think the discussion on Jews is not relevant. No-one should ever condone or excuse what the nazis did in or around WWII.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

What do you mean by fine Christian Jews?

Jews like these:

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/missionary/maoz.htm
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/11_1/journey_Hans_Bernd

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not blaming anyone, just telling you what Jesus and the apostles said.
You're telling me what the Bible says. The Bible was written to spread the word of Christianity. History is always told from the victors point of view an' all that... Or if you like the difference between inerrancy and leaving stuff out.

It was written by Jews; the Church was formed by Jews; the Church had to be persuaded that Gentiles also could be saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I take the Biblical line on it - they meant it for evil, God meant it for good. It's God I thank for Messiah's death. Personally I'd drop god from the equation all together and give thanks for the the Christ's example instead.

Of course you would. But then you don't believe the Bible. Christians do.

As far as I can see they used it as a way to remove a political and perhaps theological threat. He was up against the leaders of Gods choosen people after all. Whether it was his pretensions to the Davidic line or as the messiah or as an incarnation of god himself which offered the most threat is debatable. They didn't have the historical reference of the new testament after all.

Quite so. Christ was a threat to the Jewish establishment, and He was seen as a blasphemer by the sincerely religious among them. Both those reasons were used by Satan to persuade them to kill Jesus.

They did not have the NT, but they did have the message Christ Himself preached personally to them. They also had the OT, which, as Christ pointed out, spoke of Him. They should have expected the Messiah to come at that time, and they should have accepted His mightly works and gracious words as proof of His office.

What prevented them doing so was for some the loss of power it would bring them; and for the sincerely religious it was their self-righteousness: they did not want to admit they werre hopelessly lost sinners who needed a Saviour.

Evil would seem like a relative thing in this context though I guess they didn't realise the gravity of their situation! *ironic smiley*

To reject God's command is always a sin. That sin is more grave the more light one has. To murder an innocent man who you know is at least a prophet sent from God, that is a very grave offence. One that was repeated down the course of Jewish history in the OT.

But the fact was that God had now sent His Son, and they murdered Him too. Following that they murdered or harrassed many of the Jews who believed on Christ. Hence the exemplary punishment sent on the nation by God.

Think about it: they were cast out of the land for 70 years for their sins in the OT times. Following the murder of their Messiah they were out of the land for 27x that long. The religious Jew knows that has significance. They just need to face up to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Such evil actions against the Jews were totally opposed to the teaching of the apostles. It was the spirit of this world that motivated it, not the Holy Spirit. The idea that we should kill or harm those who differ from us in religion forgets what Christ and the apostles told us about the nature of His kingdom - it is not of this world, and the Church has no role in punishing the unbelievers. Not only Jews, but 'heretics' of all descriptions suffered under the influence of this evil doctrine.
I've never been able to comprehend this jump in attitude from 1st Testament God sanctioned genocide toward the rise of the Jewish peoples to Christ's teachings. Did god change his mind?

No, He has just different parts of His plan to accomplish. When He has done that - saved a great multitude of Jews and Gentiles throughout this age - then He will destroy all the wicked.

Yes to punish him for his heresy if you will. Acts 2 as you quoted defends Jesus' position as to his or his followers claim to the house of David. There's no reference to the Jewish rulers argument or does that not matter?

The rulers refused to believe He was born in Bethlehem and pointed out that Nazareth was not mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah. They must have remembered the massacre of the innocents of Bethlehem by Herod, but conveniently ignored it.

The Jewish leaders would have been very aware of the Roman reaction to such a person as Jesus if he had gained popularity like the Bible says. They had a "peaceful" situation with Rome and Jesus threatened to unbalance that, so I'd guess they delayed the inevitable for a while.

They feared Caesar more than they did God. So God gave them Caesar to the full.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But as I said in my post, God has a merciful purpose toward Israel - their conversion and addition to His Church. Down the ages a remnant experienced this, but one day all the Jews then living will be converted.

So all Jews and others are to be converted to what Catholics? Baptists? Born Again?

Since the time of Christ, a great number of Gentiles and a portion of the Jews have been saved in each generation. Before the Last Day all the Jews then alive will be converted to Christ. All will be born again - that is the nature of being a (real) Christian. To date all converts are found in a variety of denominations/local churches. I don't know if the final conversions will find the same groups around, but they will be a part of the Church however it manifests itself.

And if they don't want to? Then what?

Anyone who doesn't want to be converted will not be. The mark of those whom God has chosen is that they will want to - He will change their evil hearts so that they gladly obey Him.

The one-sidedness of your point of view and your use of adjectives like "dirty work", evil regarding the happenings of the time is patronizing at best.

It's 'one-sided' because it is the Biblical side. I'm not here to give a study in comparative religion. Christianity is exclusive:
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Anyway this is getting quite far enough away from Darwin's apology, or should I say the churches apology, or anyones apology for that matter.

Ok - but don't worry. The same people apologise for ever teaching that Christ is the only way to the Father. That tells you something of their relationship to Him.