Originally posted by jaywillLet us all agree that we are appalled at the way Nazis developed and implemented the policies described. The need to contest such attitudes is as urgent as it ever was. We have continued to see racism in various poisonous manifestations acted out violently in the modern world. Galton may seem to have been discredited, yet his ideas continue to sustain important strands in British education practices and policies - not least in areas which have retained selective education systems. Attitudes towards poverty and social inequality also remain hugely influenced by notions of an inherent difference in the humanity of the wealthier and the poorer sections of society. All of this is despicable and yet insidious. All of it is important.
Beware of Atheists trying to re-write history.
Copied without permission from the Gospel Hour wbesite: ( http://www.gospelhour.net/2232.html )
Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "eugenics" as follows: "A science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities in a series of generations of race or breed, esp ...[text shortened]... h Nietzsche, one of Christianity's and humanity's greatest enemies...
Taking this moral outrage as a common denominator on which all decent people can agree, the urgent need to innoculate ourselves against its continuing influences is a matter on which we also need to agree.
What makes me and others very agitated indeed is to see this important and hugely emotional lever put to use in a dishonest programme of misinformation and propoganda. I resent the manipulation of arguments and twisting of logic at work in seeking to attribute these evils to the work of Darwin and to propose as a solution a return to archaic and discredited beliefs based on a peculiar reading of the Bible (though modern fundamentalist readings of the Bible are novel and modern, they are not returning but inventing).
I am especially enraged, knowing that anti-semitisim is the product of Christianity, has no motive or reason for existing outside of Christianity, rooted in the political desire of St Paul to distance Christians from Jews in the minds of the Roman Empire, which was at his time confronting rebellion and insurrection from Jewish fanatics. It is in the lands of the Christians that Jews have been subjected to pogroms and severe oppression when muslim lands gave them tolerance, freedom to worship and an honoured place in their societies. Because of its roots in Paul, of course, both Slavic / Orthodox and Western Christians (who diverged only much later) have been equally brutish in their mistreatment of the Jews.
It is shameful, disgraceful that modern Christian fundamentalists would dare to claim a moral high ground and to claim ownership of the moral rights in regard to the Holocaust and to misuse their sanctimonious and flagrantly dishonest claims as a basis for trivial, tired and stupid argments against the scientific world and to support incidental, latter day squabbles over the reproductive rights of women, the civil rights of gays and lesbians and the rest of their misanthropic, dystopian, miserable social vision.
By the way Jaywill, I not only watched your tiresome YouTube links but partially summarised them in responses which have yet to be answered by you, hiding behind the distractions of that idiot Hinds. They are pieces of propoganda produced by educated men who know they are lying, twisting and distorting the evidence and manipulating their intended audience in pursuit of dishonest goals.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Can't you read and understand anything? I gave the amoeba as an
ezample. I never said Darwin believed that all living things descended
from an amoeba. I said like an amoeba. Dont you know what "like" means?
Darwin liked knowledge and believed things that were wrong and at least
some of us know better now. Apparently, you don't. You don't even know
the evolutionary theory.
Can't you read and understand anything? I gave the amoeba as an
ezample. I never said Darwin believed that all living things descended
from an amoeba.
-and neither did I because I wasn’t clear on what you were trying to imply ( your post was too muddled ) so I was deliberately careful not to explicitly state what you might or might not be claiming. Reminder of what I said:
He never believed that all living things must have descended from an amoeba. ( my quote)
now I never actually said in the above nor anywhere else you claimed this did I. I was too lazy of a typist to postfix the above with “-like cell”.
It is OK by me if you swap “...amoeba” in by above quote with “...amoeba-like cell” -not that I think that would stop your ignorant rantings.
Reminder of your original quote:
He believed all living things descended from A common
ancestor, like a single cell amoeba. (my emphasis)
perhaps now you can finally clarify? -are you saying BOTH that he believed that all living things must have descended from A ( i.e. singular ) common ancestor i.e. ALL life came from the SAME common ancestor AND this SINGLE common ancestor must have been LIKE a single cell amoeba?
-If so, show us evidence of this.
You don't even know
the evolutionary theory.
I have clearly stated what it is many times and you have clearly shown your complete ignorance of what it really means many times on these forums by, for example, implying that it means life is just an “accident” 😛
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut we all know that Jehovah is an error, but many have gotten used to
what a brilliant video, its true that our dear atheist friends more or less religiously and
dogmatically believe in unobserved phenomena, its rather fascinating to be honest.
They were a little condescending though in calling the atheist a drone. Yay it mentions
Jehovah!
saying it. And it is in many old Bibles that were translated by those that
did not know any better. So don't get too excited about it. HalleluYah !!!
5 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
Let us all agree that we are appalled at the way Nazis developed and implemented the policies described. The need to contest such attitudes is as urgent as it ever was. We have continued to see racism in various poisonous manifestations acted out violently in the modern world. Galton may seem to have been discredited, yet his ideas continue to sustain impor ...[text shortened]... distorting the evidence and manipulating their intended audience in pursuit of dishonest goals.
I am especially enraged, knowing that anti-semitisim is the product of Christianity, has no motive or reason for existing outside of Christianity, rooted in the political desire of St Paul to distance Christians from Jews in the minds of the Roman Empire,
You seemed to have never read chapters 9 - 11 of the book of Romans.
In this basic outlay of Christian doctrine the Apostle Paul makes quite a few statements which hardly could be counted as Anti Semitic:
" ... Isrealites, whose are the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and out of whom, as regards that is according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." ( 9:4)
Paul is saying that the whole salvation comes out of the Jews.
To Israel, the world must give credit for the universal truth and salvation of man.
He also says there that GOD became a JEWISH man - " out of whom, acccording to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever."
That's not anti-semitism to say God became a JEW !
Granted, Paul does speak of some divine discipline upon Israel. But Paul also reminds the Gentiles that they owe EVERYTHING to God's work with and through the JEWS. He warns the Gentiles not to be highminded against the Jews.
He discribes the JEWS as the natural branchess of God's tree. The Gentiles are only GRAFTED in by God's mercy:
"DO NOT BOAST AGAINST the branches; but if you boast, remember that is is not you who bear the root, but the root you. You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
Rightly said; they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stqand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear;
For if God did not spare the NATURAL BRANCHES, neither will He spare you. " (Rom. 11:18-21)
Rather than encouraging Gentiles to be highminded against the Jews, Paul is warning them to be very humble minded and to even fear. Only God's temporary discipline and His mercy is the source of the Gentiles being saved.
Latter Paul says that all Israel will be saved - "And thus all Israel will be saved ..." (v.26a)
Paul says that the temporary "stumbling" of the Jews toward God is providencially the merciful salvation of the Gentiles:
"But if their misstep has become riches for the world, and their loss, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness be !" (v.12)
Paul says that the casting aside of the Jews as salvific nation is temporary. Their reinstatement as the top peoples upon the earth will be unimaginable riches to the world:
" For if their being cast aside is the reconciliation of the world, what shall their being received back be, if not life from the dead?" (11:15)
This is your anti-semitism of Paul ?? Shouldn't we take his passages of salvation along with his passages of national chastizemnt ? Shouldn't we take both together for a well rounded and honest picture ?
"Behold then the kindness and severity of God; on those who fell, severity; but on you [Gentiles], the kindness of God, IF you continue in His kidness; otherwisee you also will be cut off." (11:22)
This sounds like WARNING to the Romans and to the Gentiles about the proper attitude we should have toward the Jews.
which was at his time confronting rebellion and insurrection from Jewish fanatics. It is in the lands of the Christians that Jews have been subjected to pogroms and severe oppression when muslim lands gave them tolerance, freedom to worship and an honoured place in their societies. Because of its roots in Paul, of course, both Slavic / Orthodox and Western Christians (who diverged only much later) have been equally brutish in their mistreatment of the Jews.
You cannot blame this historic anti-semitism on the Apostle Paul.
But you may place some blame upon those Christians NOT listening to Paul rather than listening to him.
Above you spoke of your revulsion of "twisting". I feel you are twisting things now to accuse Paul of what is not Paul's fault.
Granted, some ISOLATED passages might have furnished warped and bigoted minds already pre-disposed against the Jews. How about we view the whole matter of his writings fairly ?
And I would add that the passages in Romans 9 - 11 which do speak of divine displeasure and discipline towards Israel, are mostly QUOTATIONS of what God Himself spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament.
Those passages are part of the Jewish canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures given to them by God. Paul quotes the negative along with the positive ones together.
It is shameful, disgraceful that modern Christian fundamentalists would dare to claim a moral high ground and to claim ownership of the moral rights in regard to the Holocaust and to misuse their
Well, I maintain that the ONLY moral high ground belongs to Christ Himself. The rest of us are sinners in need of redemption.
Only Jesus Christ has the moral high ground. The rest of us are only good for the lake of fire.
Was it anti-semitic for Paul to say that the Gentiles apart from the covenants to Israel were WITHOUT God and WITHOUT hope in the world ?
" ... you [Gentiles] were at that time apart from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD." (Eph. 2:12 my emphasis)
If Paul was anti-semitic how come he didn't teach that the Gentiles could get along fine without having anything from the Jews ?
sanctimonious and flagrantly dishonest claims as a basis for trivial, tired and stupid argments against the scientific world and to support incidental, latter day squabbles over the reproductive rights of women, the civil rights of gays and lesbians and the rest of their misanthropic, dystopian, miserable social vision.
By the way Jaywill, I not only watched your tiresome YouTube links but partially summarised them in responses which have yet to be answered by you, hiding behind the distractions of that idiot Hinds. They are pieces of propoganda produced by educated men who know they are lying, twisting and distorting the evidence and manipulating their intended audience in pursuit of dishonest goals.
As demonstrated above, I found your false accusations against the Apostle Paul to be very twisted and distorted. I won't here use the word lie because I think you speak more from ignorance. Apparently you have come under some flimsy "anti-Pauline" propoganda.
I come short of using the word LIES. But I wonder if you have even READ Romans chapters 9 - 11.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillYou write
Paul says that the temporary "stumbling" of the Jews toward God is providencially the merciful salvation of the Gentiles:
As demonstrated above, I found your false accusations against the Apostle Paul to be very twisted and distorted. I won't here use the word lie because I think you speak more from ignorance. Apparently you have come under some f me short of using the word LIES. But I wonder if you have even READ Romans chapters 9 - 11.[/b]
You cannot blame this historic anti-semitism on the Apostle Paul. But you may place some blame upon those Christians NOT listening to Paul rather than listening to him.
I feel you are twisting things now to accuse Paul of what is not Paul's fault. Granted, some ISOLATED passages might have furnished warped and bigoted minds already pre-disposed against the Jews. How about we view the whole matter of his writings fairly ?
A consistent conceit of yours is to suggest that the category "Christian" can be redefined to suit your case. Sometimes there are "Christians" who have warped and bigoted minds" and do not listen to Paul, but these are not authentic Christians and their behaviour is not a reflection on true Christianity. This has some validity of course, for example it is important for Christians to understand the dangers of bigotry and false teaching, but it has none whatever when discussing the historic role of Christianity.
Of course Paul has to retain a role for the Jews in his new religion, since Jesus was a Jew and makes no sense outside of the Jewish tradition, but he is quite clear in your own citations that this role is in the past
"DO NOT BOAST AGAINST the branches; but if you boast, remember that is is not you who bear the root, but the root you. You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
and has been ended by their own "stumbling"
Paul says that the temporary "stumbling" of the Jews toward God is providencially the merciful salvation of the Gentiles:
And I would add that the passages in Romans 9 - 11 which do speak of divine displeasure and discipline towards Israel, are mostly QUOTATIONS of what God Himself spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament.
Well that is not wrong, but the selection of passages remains influential; by inserting these passages into this text, Paul makes then his own:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”
And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”
These are not written to flatter are they? It would be anachronistic to suggest that Paul had intended to put in place the mindset which permitted future viciousness towards the Jews and I never said that. I pointed out more specifically that he made a very clear and firm separation between the Christians and Jews in order (hopefully) to prevent the two religions being treated as one and the same from the perspective of a Roman Empire becoming increasingly annoyed at Jewish insubordination to their imperial rule. It was dangerous for Christians to be regarded as a Jewish sect. Of course, it was very much Paul's intention to devise a proselytizing religion for "gentiles" and not to engage (as Jesus had done) in attempts to revitalize the Jewish faith. But it is worth recalling that the Jews at this time were also making many converts around the Roman Empire and were quite successful - they were rivals.
Given the violent nature of Roman oppression against the Jews, Paul was certainly not, in this letter to the Romans, doing the Jews any favours though, was he? He was not exactly speaking up for the oppressed!! Would it be possible to interpret his commentary as a justification for the oppression of the Jews under the Romans as an expression of God's will, in punishment for their unbelief? No - Paul was not wasting much sentiment in that regard. Leave us Christians alone - those nasty Jews are the problem?
Much of the argument in the passages you reference (Romans 9-11) is doing exactly what I say - it is building a bridge from the Jewish religion of the past to a new and Gentile Christian religion. "So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." "Rightly said; they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear; For if God did not spare the NATURAL BRANCHES, neither will He spare you. " (Rom. 11:18-21)
Paul says that the casting aside of the Jews as salvific nation is temporary. Their reinstatement as the top peoples upon the earth will be unimaginable riches to the world: " For if their being cast aside is the reconciliation of the world, what shall their being received back be, if not life from the dead?" (11:15) This is your anti-semitism of Paul ?? Shouldn't we take his passages of salvation along with his passages of national chastizemnt ? Shouldn't we take both together for a well rounded and honest picture ?
Ah yes indeed. Christianity did not have to become associated with anti-semitism and might have taken other, more tolerant paths. But in history and in actual fact over two thousand years, this has not been the case has it? Christianity has been disseminated as much by violence as by conversion. Tolerance of other religions has never featured because it is simply not built into the fabric in the way it was, for example, in the Qu'ran with its powerful protection for other "peoples of the book." We are not describing rogue Christians here, some bigoted minority. We are describing the majority of Christians in actual practice. Even the Puritans who set off for America did not seek a tolerant land, if anything they were leaving tolerance behind, but one in which they could impose more firmly their own, puritanical streak of Christian dogmatism. And would you read the happy future for the Jews as anything other than their final conversion to Christianity? "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again."
It is not a lie to refer to the long history of anti-semitism as a prominent attribute of the Christian tradition in both Western and Slavic lands. You may validly argue that this was never properly consistent with the teachings of Jesus. You may plead that Paul has been misinterpreted in support of anti semitism, though even you concede that this misinterpretation has indeed featured in its history, but for this to happen the material has to be present and it clearly is present and I am not lying. You should not confuse what ought to have happened (in your opinion) with what has happened in fact.
However, when I introduced the allegation of lying, it was with specific reference to the YouTube videos which I reviewed at your invitation. Your defence of Paul is selective but tolerable. Your defence of those videos is not tolerable. Again, it is an abuse to cite the Holocaust as an argument in favour of the current, relatively trivial and highly contentious political campaigns of the modern, fundamentalist Right in American social politics. In that context, the fundamentalist Christians display in your videos no recognition of the contribution of the Christian tradition (however misguided and error prone we may agree that to be) to the vile anti-semitism which was exploited so tragically by the Nazis in a country that was, of course, part of Western Christendom.
Originally posted by finnegan
You writeYou cannot blame this historic anti-semitism on the Apostle Paul. But you may place some blame upon those Christians [b]NOTlistening to Paul rather than listening to him.
[quote] I feel you are twisting things now to accuse Paul of what is not Paul's fault. Granted, some ISOLATED passages might have furnished warped and ...[text shortened]... Nazis in a country that was, of course, part of Western Christendom.[/b]
A consistent conceit of yours is to suggest that the category "Christian" can be redefined to suit your case.
No I did not. I didn't "False Christians can be anti-semitic but genuine Christians cannot."
Quote me if I said that -
What I DID write left ground for acknowedging that even real believers in Christ NOT listening to Paul could have been anti-semitic. Be fair now. Isn't that what I wrote ?
If the New Testament plainly spends so much space on helping to move the disciples from immaturity to maturity how could I possibly believe that all Christians could never behave badly ?
False accusation there, not a problem of my conceit.
Sometimes there are "Christians" who have warped and bigoted minds" and do not listen to Paul, but these are not authentic Christians and their behaviour is not a reflection on true Christianity. This has some validity of course, for example it is important for Christians to understand the dangers of bigotry and false teaching, but it has none whatever when discussing the historic role of Christianity.
Well, I cannot double check my writing now. But if I did put Christians inside QUOTATIONS I was not implying that only false ones (who do not really believe in the resurrected Lord and Godman) could thus behave badly.
It should be obvious that quite few letters of the apostles are dealing with ill behaved Christian brothers and sisters whom the apostles are trying to bring up to speed.
Some false brothers have given a bad name the faith. But some genuine ones have also done so. Take the quotation marks, if I used them, to imply Christ's words "by their FRUITS you shall know them".
Of course Paul has to retain a role for the Jews in his new religion, since Jesus was a Jew and makes no sense outside of the Jewish tradition, but he is quite clear in your own citations that this role is in the past
It is not purely in the past for Paul. I showed you that he talked about their temporary setting aside. I told you of Paul saying "all Israel will be saved".
There is NOTHING in those chapters suggesting that God's election of the Jews is over forever. Rather Paul speaks of this time of the Gentiles when God's mercy is extended to them.
You err in portraying Paul as teaching a final rejection forever of Israel. Christ didn't teach it. So neither did Christ's apostle teach it.
And any harshness you charge the Apostle Paul with could also be paralleled with the words of Christ Himself. And not only with Christ's words but with the words of many of the Old Testament prophets.
By the way, in Revelation 2 and 3 you have some extremly chastizing words from Jesus to His own church !
He says they left their first love.
He says they are lukewarm and He will spit them out of His mouth.
He says one church is filled with the deep things of Satan as they say.
He says they are dead.
He says they will be thrown into a bed of sickness.
He says they have a name of being alive but are dead.
He says they dwell where Satan's throne is.
Have you ever noticed some of the harsh things said by Jesus Christ to his OWN CHURCH in Revelation 2 and 3 ?
I think there is plenty of rebuke to go around.
Originally posted by finnegan
You writeYou cannot blame this historic anti-semitism on the Apostle Paul. But you may place some blame upon those Christians [b]NOTlistening to Paul rather than listening to him.
[quote] I feel you are twisting things now to accuse Paul of what is not Paul's fault. Granted, some ISOLATED passages might have furnished warped and ...[text shortened]... Nazis in a country that was, of course, part of Western Christendom.[/b]
Well that is not wrong, but the selection of passages remains influential; by inserting these passages into this text, Paul makes then his own:
You mean Paul does repeat rebukes made by Jewish prophets from the Hebrews Scriptures which they regarded as the word of God.
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”
Yes. This is pretty strong. But it is not Paul's invention.
Paul is reminding his audience of what Isaiah 29:10 and probably alluding to Deuteronomy 29:4.
You would have to charge the prophet Isaiah with making the Jews contemptable to the Romans too then.
And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”
As you indicate, that is Israel's own greatest natiopnal King hero David. That is Psalm 69:22 .
These are not written to flatter are they?
LOL ! Since when did God only speak SOOTHING words to His people in the Bible ?? I said there is plenty of rebuke to go around.
It would be anachronistic to suggest that Paul had intended to put in place the mindset which permitted future viciousness towards the Jews and I never said that. I pointed out more specifically that he made a very clear and firm separation between the Christians and Jews in order (hopefully) to prevent the two religions being treated as one and the same from the perspective of a Roman Empire becoming
If Paul made a very firm separation between the Christians and Jews he would not have spoken about the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile being broken down in Christ.
"For He Himself [Christ] is our peace, He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity,
Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace.
And might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it." (Eph. 2:14-16)
Paul speaks of Christ breaking down the separation, slaying the enimity, making peace, and reconciling both Jew and Gentile in one Body of Christ. It is not a Gentile Body. It is a Body of one new humanity - "one new man".
increasingly annoyed at Jewish insubordination to their imperial rule. It was dangerous for Christians to be regarded as a Jewish sect. Of course, it was very much Paul's intention to devise a proselytizing religion for "gentiles" and not to engage (as Jesus had done) in attempts to revitalize the Jewish faith. But it is worth recalling that the Jews at this time were also making many converts around the Roman Empire and were quite successful - they were rivals.
The closing chapter of the books of Acts shows Paul attempting to preach Christ the Messiah and His kingdom to JEWS to the very end. Acts 28 has him in a Roman detention house. Jewish leaders are visiting him and he is trying his best to convince them Acts 28:17-22)
Paul was trying to produce "disciples" who knew Jesus in the same intimate depths of how Paul himself knew Jesus. He was not interested in "proselyts" or in "proselytizing" but in introduction men to the living and available Lord.
He said he was deptor both to the Greeks and to barbarians. But his gospel he said was to the Jew FIRST and also to the Greeks.
I don't blame Paul for the anti-semitism of church history.
in attempts to revitalize the Jewish faith. But it is worth recalling that the Jews at this time were also making many converts around the Roman Empire and were quite successful - they were rivals
Paul used the fact that he was a trained Pharisee with a trypical Pharisee's hope in RESURRECTION to support his gospel preaching.
This could be viewed as an attempt to revitalize the Jewish faith yet include the Messiah Jesus. For the Saducees did not believe in the resurrection. Paul stood on his conservative status as a resurrection believing Pharisee by training.
By doing this he gained some support of the more conservative Pharisees over against the more modernistic Saducees see Acts 23:6 and context.
Of course Paul was still contraversial, no doubt. But this move could be considered his appeal to the older conservative Judaism against the modernists of the day of Jewish thinkers.
As for rivalry, it was a rivalry between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The way of Justification by Faith was the way of the New Covenant which was promised by GOD in the Old Testament through Jeremiah the prophet.
I notice no blame is assigned by you to Moses, to Isaiah, to David, or to Jeremiah. Yet these are the sources that Paul quotes to teach the truth of the new covenant.
Given the violent nature of Roman oppression against the Jews, Paul was certainly not, in this letter to the Romans, doing the Jews any favours though, was he?
Paul was out to be FAITHFUL to the God who called him to be an apostle. The doing of "favors" is a humanly political matter.
To tell people the TRUTH is the best service you can perform for them.
And he would not have been the first man of God to be ministering God's word to Jews while they were in trouble with the surrounding hostile world.
In this I see Paul as following very much in the same way in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Zechariah and other prophets also ministered. There highest service to the Jews was to tell them the TRUTH from God.
He was not exactly speaking up for the oppressed!! Would it be possible to interpret his commentary as a justification for the oppression of the Jews under the Romans as an expression of God's will, in punishment for their unbelief? No - Paul was not wasting much sentiment in that regard. Leave us Christians alone - those nasty Jews are the problem?
If you read Philippians, Acts, and the Second letter of the Corinthians ( I believe without double checking) I think you should find passages about Paul collecting needed financial support for poverty struck Jewish believers.
So far there is little I read from your accusations that does not appear to me warped, biased, and generally anti -Pauline.
I also think it is a case of misdirection. I think your real problem is probably with Christ and not Paul. But having said that, the scandelous fact of terrible anti-semitism is an unfortunate part of church history.
Doesn't mean that I as a disciple of Jesus have to succumb to it.
I have to suspend for now.
Much of the argument in the passages you reference (Romans 9-11) is doing exactly what I say - it is building a bridge from the Jewish religion of the past to a new and Gentile Christian religion. "So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." "Rightly said; they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear; For if God did not spare the NATURAL BRANCHES, neither will He spare you. " (Rom. 11:18-21)
He is helping people to come forth from the dispensation of the old covenant into the way of the new covenant.
Did not Jesus say that you could not put new wine into old wineskins ?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
If you read Philippians, Acts, and the Second letter of the Corinthians ( I believe without double checking) I think you should find passages about Paul collecting needed financial support for poverty struck Jewish believers.
Jewish believers are presumably converts to Christianity.
He is helping people to come forth from the dispensation of the old covenant into the way of the new covenant. Did not Jesus say that you could not put new wine into old wineskins
Well Jesus did, according to the New Testament of course. So we are here talking about converting Jews to the new religion are we not (or why not?) ?
Paul was trying to produce "disciples" who knew Jesus in the same intimate depths of how Paul himself knew Jesus. He was not interested in "proselyts" or in "proselytizing" but in introduction men to the living and available Lord.
What type of quibble is this? What does it mean to "proselytize?" if it is not equivalent to preach and seek to convert? Even if you can find an obscure way to set out some meaningful distinction, I am not exactly off the wall crazy if I interpret his intention as being to convert.
This could be viewed as an attempt to revitalize the Jewish faith yet include the Messiah Jesus. For the Saducees did not believe in the resurrection. Paul stood on his conservative status as a resurrection believing Pharisee by training.
This is too creative to be serious! Paul's idea of revitalizing the Jewish religion was to replace it with the Christian religion. Of course he wanted to convince Jews of his case about the transition from one to the other. We have covered this ground.
As for rivalry, it was a rivalry between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The way of Justification by Faith was the way of the New Covenant which was promised by GOD in the Old Testament through Jeremiah the prophet.
What kind of a quibble is that? Old Covenent = the Jewish faith, New Covenant = the Christian faith. With room for a little imprecision of terms, what remains is rivalry. I don't see this refuting my remark!
The closing chapter of the books of Acts shows Paul attempting to preach Christ the Messiah and His kingdom to JEWS to the very end. Acts 28 has him in a Roman detention house. Jewish leaders are visiting him and he is trying his best to convince them Acts 28:17-22)
Why is that not proselytizing? But I see, by the way, that as Paul wished to convert Jews he was not himself anti-semitic and of course I agree with you on that. That does not alter my argument in the lsightest since I never said he was anti-semitic. Again, it would be anachronistic to attribute to Paul any concern with issues that were not contemporary. However, this leaves open the way he did in fact influence later events by his choice of arguments.
I notice no blame is assigned by you to Moses, to Isaiah, to David, or to Jeremiah. Yet these are the sources that Paul quotes to teach the truth of the new covenant.
No I am not currenly even discussing the Old Testament. I am discussing Paul. As I said, the choices he makes to quote frtom the Old Testament are significant and in selecting the ones he does, while he may or may not misrepresent the intentions of the source, he makes them in effect his own, giving them a new meaning in relation to his contemporary concerns. As you know very well, there is an art form to selecting quotes from other sources. The same happens with Shakespeare.
So far there is little I read from your accusations that does not appear to me warped, biased, and generally anti -Pauline.
You may hold that view but you have not supported it with your arguments.
I also think it is a case of misdirection. I think your real problem is probably with Christ and not Paul. But having said that, the scandelous fact of terrible anti-semitism is an unfortunate part of church history. Doesn't mean that I as a disciple of Jesus have to succumb to it.
Like drawing teeth! In saying that "the scandelous fact of terrible anti-semitism is an unfortunate part of church history" I am no more than stating the blindingly obvious and you appear reluctantly to concede the relevant point on which my argument hangs in this thread.
Well, I maintain that the ONLY moral high ground belongs to Christ Himself. The rest of us are sinners in need of redemption. Only Jesus Christ has the moral high ground. The rest of us are only good for the lake of fire.
Such humility is entirely acceptable and appropriate. What a shame it is not manifest in the video to which I have objected so strongly and which nothing you say serves to defend.
I would go further. What is shocking in the Holocaust is the realization that there is no group of us - atheist or theist, Darwinist or Spencerian, Christian or otherwise - who is incapable of succumbing to that miasma of poison under the given conditions. The Germans were not weird and strange, but ordinary fallible humans with opinions and values not radically different to our own. We are inherently vulnerable to persuasive influences of the most insidious forms. There is no group of us with the moral standing to claim that this could never have happened on our watch.
What is shocking to me is to observe a Creationist video on YouTube taking as its premise that the Holocaust demonstrates their virtue and the evil of those who disagree with them. The Holocaust is not available to be misused in manipulative and untruthful propoganda for any argument at all. This does not conern the Truth or otherwise of the Bible. It concerns telling the truth about the Holocaust and that video does not tell the truth, it tells lies.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by finneganI take a slight issue with this.
I would go further. What is shocking in the Holocaust is the realization that there is no group of us - atheist or theist, Darwinist or Spencerian, Christian or otherwise - who is incapable of succumbing to that miasma of poison under the given conditions. The Germans were not weird and strange, but ordinary fallible humans with opinions and values not radi ...[text shortened]... group of us with the moral standing to claim that this could never have happened on our watch.
And I stress the slight.
Everyone is susceptible to this kind of thing in varying degrees.
We all have bad brains that are easy to dupe and confuse.
PZ Myers talking about atheism and Science and our bad brains.
Starts talking about bad brains about 23 minutes in.
However the whole raison d'etre of Skepticism and the Sceptical movement is that we embrace this idea
and put the methods for avoiding and minimising such effects at the very core of our philosophy.
While no person or group is totally immune from such effects it is not true or fair to say that all groups
are equally prone to such problems.
The fact that Skeptics recognise these issues and take steps to minimise and weed out such mistaken
and vile ideas means that we are as a group much less prone to these effects and are so by design.
And while I agree that we can't claim that such things couldn't ever happen on 'our watch' assuming we
ever had one, we can reasonably claim that it's much less likely to happen on our watch.
Because we recognise this possibility and take steps to prevent it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have seen no evidence that Germany was short of scientists and sceptical thinkers in the Thirties any more than it was short of active Christians. It had great scientists, writers, artists, whatever. I have seen no evidence that Germans belonged in any serious manner to a different category of humanity to ourselves.
I take a slight issue with this.
And I stress the slight.
Everyone is susceptible to this kind of thing in varying degrees.
We all have bad brains that are easy to dupe and confuse.
PZ Myers talking about atheism and Science and our bad brains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0MnBmSlhE
[i]Starts talking about bad brains about 23 minu ...[text shortened]... appen on our watch.
Because we recognise this possibility and take steps to prevent it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganAnd I did not claim otherwise.
I have seen no evidence that Germany was short of scientists and sceptical thinkers in the Thirties any more than it was short of active Christians. It had great scientists, writers, artists, whatever. I have seen no evidence that Germans belonged in any serious manner to a different category of humanity to ourselves.
The Skeptic movement is all about the fact that we all have bad brains and that we are easily
deceived and are susceptible to things like group think and all kinds of other potentially malign
influences.
Which is why Skeptical thinking and rationality and the scientific method have been developed
which are all in various ways designed to counter such phenomena.
True Skeptical thinking and thinkers are rare in any and all current and historical societies which
is part of the problem.
True skeptical thinking is rather rare and requires training. It's an acquired learned skill that needs
to be maintained.
And many of the psychological problems that you need to be aware of are relatively recent discoveries.
So no Germany in the thirties did not have any significant Skeptic movement (in it's modern form) and
Neither did anywhere else.
I am emphatically not claiming that skeptics are any smarter or are different from any other kind of people.
What I am saying is that of all the different philosophies and world-views Skepticism owes it's existence and
has it's whole raison d'etre around the fact that we are easily deceived and thus we should take steps and
measures to prevent and mitigate the problems of our bad brains.
This applies to everything from advertising to avoiding con-artists and scams to woo such as astrology and
'alternative medicine' to belief in the supernatural and gods.
The very fact that Skepticism acknowledges the problem and by design takes steps to deal with it makes those
who really apply these techniques less susceptible to being tricked, fooled or deceived and as a group we are
even more resilient because we check each others beliefs and point out errors others have made and not spotted.
To claim that everyone and every group and every philosophy is equally susceptible to being deceived by our bad
and gullible brains is to claim that it's not possible to do anything about it and that is simply not true.
It is possible to guard against being deceived or misled by our brains.
Not perfectly, but I was never claiming otherwise.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganIf you read Philippians, Acts, and the Second letter of the Corinthians ( I believe without double checking) I think you should find passages about Paul collecting needed financial support for poverty struck Jewish believers.
Jewish believers are presumably converts to Christianity.
[quote] He is helping people to come forth from the d he truth about the Holocaust and that video does not tell the truth, it tells lies.
Jewish believers are presumably converts to Christianity.
The early Church were all Jews. It started in Jerusalem with Jewish disciples of Jesus. It grew among Jewish people from Israel and other nations at Pentacost.
Well Jesus did, according to the New Testament of course. So we are here talking about converting Jews to the new religion are we not (or why not?) ?
Well, I tell you. I don't think God is the God of religion. I think God is the God of reality.
He was leading them to a living Person of the Triune God. He was bringing them into contact with the resurrected and available Christ who has also transformed Himself into a form as "a life giving Spirit".
" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" 91 Cor. 15:45) This is God dispensing Himself into man's innermost being to be man's inward divine life and nature. As Peter also said that the believers are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4)
That is not just religious onlookers but participating "partakers". That is not merely objective worshippers of the divine nature. That is subjectively enjoying of the divine nature - "partakers".
That is not spectators of God. But it is participants in God as joined to the Lord - "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
This is not a religion to me. This is being "organically" joined to an available God who dispenses Himself into us to make us "PARTAKERS of the divine nature".
What type of quibble is this?
This is the type of reality which sometimes those without experience scoff at. So you are scoffing at this calling it quibble.
Probably you just lack experience with the living and available Christ. but you certainly CAN experience Jesus Christ if you open up to Him from deep within your heart.
What does it mean to "proselytize?" if it is not equivalent to preach and seek to convert?
That may be true. But really what Paul was doing was causing Christ to be born into people and formed in them.
"My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ be formed in you." (Gal. 4:19)
Paul labored to have God dispense the available Christ into people and to gradually take shape withing them. You can have a proselyte without have Christ dispensed and formed in people.
Even if you can find an obscure way to set out some meaningful distinction, I am not exactly off the wall crazy if I interpret his intention as being to convert.
Paul wanted to lead people along the path that he himself had experienced. Paul said it pleased God to reveal His Son in him:
"But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, To reveal His Son in me ..." (Gal. 1:15,16)
He wanted to produce others into whom Christ had come and revealed Himself IN them as well. And this not simply to be saved but that Christ would take shape in them, being formed in them.
me:
This could be viewed as an attempt to revitalize the Jewish faith yet include the Messiah Jesus. For the Saducees did not believe in the resurrection. Paul stood on his conservative status as a resurrection believing Pharisee by training.
This is too creative to be serious! Paul's idea of revitalizing the Jewish religion was to replace it with the Christian religion.
The Pharisees didn't think so. At least they were happy that this trouble maker was still holding to the Jewish hope of the resurrection from the dead. That was a fundamental tenet of their Judaistic hope.
At least he was closer to the traditions than the resurrection denying Sadducees. And at that time the Sanhedrin high court was predominantly composed of the modernistic Sadducees.
What kind of a quibble is that? Old Covenent = the Jewish faith, New Covenant = the Christian faith. With room for a little imprecision of terms, what remains is rivalry. I don't see this refuting my remark!
What I am saying is the we should not think of the new covenant church as "Gentile". We should think of it as Paul taught it "one new man".
Understand that "one new man" is really neither Jew nor Gentile. And for this reason Paul told the Galatians that in the normal church life there cannot be Jew nor Greek -
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ." (Galatians 3:27,28)
Old social stratifications are broken down in the new testament church in her most normal state. It is not that there SHOULD not be Jew nor Greek. It is that there "CANNOT BE" Jew nor Greek.
This is not a liberal and tolerant exhortation as if "Now you all SHOULD not be divisive that way." Rather it is that there is no possibility for the old division to exist - "There CANNOT BE ... Jew nor Greek"
The Christians are of a group in which there CANNOT be Jew and Greek. Now I believe that you are suggesting a Gentile Church which is not Jewish. I think that is what you are saying. What I am saying is that Paul taught a church which is "one new man" where there CANNOT be the old division between Jewish culture and Gentile culture.
This is also why Paul spoke against something that Jesus we do not find mentioning - circumcision. Jesus broke down the significance of the Sabbath. Upon the same principle Paul broke down the significance of circumcision verses uncircumcision.
"For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is what matters." (Gal. 6:15)
I have to suspend writing for the moment.
3 edits
Originally posted by humyThat is pretty close. Darwin believed that life appeared on earth by some freakCan't you read and understand anything? I gave the amoeba as an
ezample. I never said Darwin believed that all living things descended
from an amoeba.
-and neither did I because I wasn’t clear on what you were trying to imply ( your post was too muddled ) so I was deliberately careful not to explicitly state what you might or might not ny times on these forums by, for example, implying that it means life is just an “accident” 😛
accidental occurance, without the intervention of God. It was in th form of a single cell that branched into animal and plants and some that were part animal and part plant. He does not go into his beliefs on the actual reproduction process but he at least knew of the discovery of the single cell amoeba, so that is why I use that as an example. Given enough time he thought all the different forms of plant and animal life that we see today evolved from this first life form, thus the term "common ancestor".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
P.S. The Christian view is a "Common Designer" the Creator God of the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by RJHinds
That is pretty close. Darwin believed that life appeared on earth by some freak
accidental occurance, without the intervention of God. It was in th form of a single cell that branched into animal and plants and some that were part animal and part plant. He does not go into his beliefs on the actual reproduction process but he at least knew of the discove ...[text shortened]... escent
P.S. The Christian view is a "Common Designer" the Creator God of the Holy Bible.
Darwin believed that life appeared on earth by some freak
accidental occurance, without the intervention of God.
-this is NOT part of the theory of evolution but rather is to do with abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of the first life.
Hypothetically, even if the formation of the first life involved absolutely and literally no element of chance, that would not in anyway logically contradict evolution.
Evolution is no “accident” and Darwin never believed otherwise. He correctly understood that it was an INEVITABLE process given the conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
so? I know what Common descent is 😛
Even if, hypothetically, not all life shares the SAME common ancestor, that would not in anyway logically contradict evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay.
And I did not claim otherwise.
''''''
It is possible to guard against being deceived or misled by our brains.
Not perfectly, but I was never claiming otherwise.
What I am arguing against is the YouTube clip presented by Jaywill to the forum, in which it is argued that the Holocaust was a product of Darwinism and it is also argued that the alternative to the Nazi's violent racism is to adopt a Creationist viewpoint and fight against modern evils like euthenasia and abortion and presumably (not mentioned of course) taxing the rich or tolerating civil rights for Latino immigrants to the States.
I responded that as a matter of fact Darwin's theories and his methods are incompatible with the Nazi desire to produce a master race (they have more association with Herbert Spencer for example, who is not a Darwinist by any means). I recognise of course that Darwin does discuss slective breeding, as in farm animals, and that may indeed attract the Nazis. What the Nazis would hate is Darwin's rejection of the notion that any species is evolving towards some kind of destiny or perfection - that kind of thinking is rejected and disproved by Darwin and advocated, on the other hand, by Spencer. Darwin's investigation of the emotions also demonstrates that humanity is not divided into different kinds but that we share the same features, emotions and expressions across every culture. The Nazis would hate him.
I pointed out that the extreme nationalism and militarism of the Germans arose from the German Romantic Movement, which was a reaction against science, against the Enlightenment and of course against the dominance of French culture in the context of Napoleon's invasion and conquest of the German states.
I also argued that the Creationist clip is deceptive in omitting the huge evidence that anti semitism is a product of - and a continuing feature of - Christianity. Anti semitism is far older than the German Romantic movement and it is a Christian problem - always was.
In general, I argued that the clip is dishonest and manipulative. Jaywill has quibbled at some length, but his plea that Paul was not anti-semitic in the modern, racist sense does not shake my argument in the least and he has accepted the point that matters, which is that "the Church" has a long historical association with vile anti-semitism and so Christianity does not come to this issue with clean hands. [I assume he uses the term "The Church" in a jesuitical desire to separate his view of Christianity from that of the "Catholic Church" and maybe other churches. I referred to Western and Slavic / Orthodox Christianity.]
My argument remains with the Creationist video and not, pace Jaywill's distracting quibbles, with the deeper interpretation of Paul's epistle to the Romans. I object violently when the Creationists have the temerity to borrow the Holocaust as a form of emotional manipulative backwash to support (not logically but emotively) arguments about other matters which are, by comparison, trivial. Their desire to misrepresent current American social policies in the language of the Holocaust is sheer effrontery.
In that context, I argued that the Holocaust is not available to be misused as, in effect, advertising material whether for a Benetton jumper or for some malicious right wing American political agenda.
If anyone wishes to debate the Holocaust that is fine. It is not fine to tell lies about the Holocaust and it is not fine to use the Holocaust as an emotive support when telling lies.
Jaywill has yet to even begin dealing with that video and my criticism of it. This is curious as he gets very cross about people failing to watch the clips he posts on the forum.