Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If the message is good, imagine the messenger

Seriously though, how can you accept some of what Christ says, while rejecting the rest? Wouldn't he be trustworthy in whatever he says, including the claim that he was God?

Well Jesus preached brotherly love, which is a huge concept in Judaism.... there is a story where someone aproached the Rombom(a Jewish scholar... I think it was the Rombom) and he asks the Rombom to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. The Rombom says "Love your brother as yourself, the rest is commentary"

Jesus is not the only one giving the message.

More importantly for Jews, Christianity is well... idolatry(sorry ) which does not mean I can not live with Christians all my life in a Christian society and even have most of my friends be Christians, but it means I could never embrace their religion. G-D can not be a man and the dying for my sins thing, seems convaluted and nonsensical to me.

And no, just because someone says some good things does not mean they are automatically trust worthy, everything anyone says should be judged on a merit by merit basis. The merit of what they say has value and accepting what they say because of reputation, ignores the merit, or lack of merit.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
IMO, being the chosen people means that God will save you when the time comes. You have been chosen by God and that gets you in.

Get us into what? Judaism does not have an exclusionary concept of an afterlife.... what happens you die, REALLY is not important in Judaism-this is proboably the biggest difference between our religions...





We can not sustain ourselves? Then why even try?
And what do you think would happen if tommorow, we gave up? Society would collapse. Now do you think that would be an improvment or a net loss? You might say we could never achieve a perfect world without a supernatural force(your god), but saying that we can not improve the world by our own actions is ridiculous and demonstratably untrue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

I wouldn't laugh. This is a fundamental divide between two different philosophical concepts of the world.

The person you need to be reading is Hobbes, I think he would have significant influence on you, as he is irreligious yet comes to the same conclusions regarding human nature as has already been discussed. Hobbes believes that it is men who are depraved and that societies may mitigate the depravity, no society can remove the depravity.

To you "all evil" in this world comes from the fact that the humans want to "build a better world" despite not agreeing on what a better world would be. In other words, "all evil" in this world comes from political/religious/philosophical/whatever ideology.

People may mean well, but because we are all fallen individuals, they cannot remove evil anymore then they can remove the evil within themselves.

According to you, the only right way for the word to improve is when God decides so. Human efforts to make the world a better place are bound to do evil, and they are actually the sole source of evil.

Yes, human decisions are the sole source of evil, even as they can be good or evil. We cannot, even if we try our best make solely good decisions.

I strongly disagree with this. There's plenty of evil that comes from people who plainly don't care about others or about the world. There's plenty of evil, oppression, suffering, murder etc. that comes from people without any ideological agenda, and who are merely self-serving bastards.

So you agree then that ideology is really irrelevant to the presence of evil. People can be evil without ideology as they can be evil with it.

The other point you make is that, as humans try to change things by themselves without waiting for God, they will do evil, and we're bound to do more evil than good.

Ok I don't think that was said, and I think that you've gone a bit beyond.

Think of it as phenophtlalien in a basic solution. That's what evil is like. You may have a jar of the good, but one drop of the evil colours the entire jar. That is what it is like with our good and our evil actions, the good does not mitigate the evil just because we do more good actions then bad.

Among "good" things, you mentioned schools, which are a product of humanism. As you noted, plenty of reactionary countries still don't have schools for everybody. The reason why school is accessible to pretty much every child in our enlightened societies is because many people thought we had to do it, instead of waiting for some miracle.

True, but schools existed before the enlightenment. The enlightenment had the idea of general public education whereas previously education was a private endeavour. Depending on how things go, we may or may not see a return to the older ways.

But in the end, collective action is the only thing that allows us to fight against the many forms of oppression and evil that are borne out of greed. Slavery is now out, it's a good thing. Murder, rape, pillage, happen much less often in organized societies than if we did nothing against it (which is why murder, rape and pillage are so frequent in war, when there much less order).

Look at Sweden today, look at any of the most 'advanced' or 'progressive' countries. Why do they still suffer from rape, murder, theft?

If we are looking at Europe in the past millenia, I think there hasn't been any time where the society was less "evil" than in the past 50 years or so. And it doesn't seem miraculous at all.

Interesting. So you honestly believe that society in general has gotten less evil in the last 50 years? Now that is a good question to throw out.

I may even start a poll on this, it would have some fascinating results.

Another fellow you should read Spiffor is Joseph Conrad. He was a pole who wrote one book in English, Heart of Darkness that gets into these ideas.

[Ben Kenobi]

And no, just because someone says some good things does not mean they are automatically trust worthy, everything anyone says should be judged on a merit by merit basis. The merit of what they say has value and accepting what they say because of reputation, ignores the merit, or lack of merit.

Very true. So why do Jesus' other claims lack merit, since he has already proven himself trustworthy by preaching love.

We can not sustain ourselves? Then why even try?
And what do you think would happen if tommorow, we gave up? Society would collapse. Now do you think that would be an improvment or a net loss? You might say we could never achieve a perfect world without a supernatural force(your god), but saying that we can not improve the world by our own actions is ridiculous and demonstratably untrue.

I didn't say that. Read the quote again. There is a balance between 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling," and "for it is God that works through you."

Our own actions do matter and are significant. However, without God we could do nothing. We need to work and have God help us.

[Vesayen]

The horrors of world war 2 were only possible due to increases in social organization and technology-attempting genocide is a grand european tradition.

Barring that, would you really say Europe has ever seen a time when more people do well?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Get us into what? Judaism does not have an exclusionary concept of an afterlife.... what happens you die, REALLY is not important in Judaism-this is proboably the biggest difference between our religions...

We are talking about what the Christians believe. While the Jews do not have an exclusionary view of the afterlife, the Christians do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Pope Pius XII in WW2. The Vatican backed the pro-Nazi Ustasha regime, and helped its war-criminals escape afterwards.

The priest designated to oversee the canonization of 'Hitler's Pope', Peter Gumpel, told CBC in 2000 that “It is a fact that the Jews have killed Christ. This is an undeniable historical fact,”

Pope Pius published an encyclical in German admonishing the nazis, and their evil actions.

And yes, it is an undeniable fact that Jews were the ones who sent Christ to Pilate. I don't see why it automatically follows that Jews deserve to suffer the holocaust.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




We are talking about what the Christians believe. While the Jews do not have an exclusionary view of the afterlife, the Christians do.

Well when we talk about a Christian belief ABOUT Jews, I am going to make sure what Jews believe is represented for contrast.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even though its irrelevent this dicussion?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Pope Pius published an encyclical in German admonishing the nazis, and their evil actions.

And yes, it is an undeniable fact that Jews were the ones who sent Christ to Pilate. I don't see why it automatically follows that Jews deserve to suffer the holocaust.

Undeniable fact? Hardly.

The Romans killed him.

And to quote a little more Christian scripture.... give unto caesar what is ceasar and unto god what is gods.

Follow secular laws.

Jesus was a criminal.

Even if you gave the "Jews" the role of Judge(which is a stretch).. we don't call judges who send criminals to the death penalty killers, do we?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even though its irrelevent this dicussion?

It is not irrelevant. Judaism was the progenator of Christianity and how Jews feel about the same questions are very relevant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Hell, Jesus had to sacrifice himself for all of man's sins, so the Jews & Romans did Jesus a favor

[Ben Kenobi]

True, but they also believe that the church reigns in the name of Jesus and has the authority to tell the people what to do and what not to do. In the RCC you're partially personal responsible. YOu're responsible for your own mistakes, but you don't get the responisibility to make your own choises. The church tells you what to do.

I don't see how this is so different. You believe in Christ as the supreme authority. What he says is the standard that you judge by, and if your choices are apart from Christ then you are not going to do as well as if you were to obey him.

Secondly, you have elders and pastors who's job is to help you keep Christ's ways. Catholics are the same.

How could one be personally responsible if one did not have the authority to make decisions in your life. Just becuase the church says something in no way means they force you to do things.

[Ben Kenobi]

And Hell, Jesus had to sacrifice himself for all of man's sins, so the Jews & Romans did Jesus a favor

Indeed. Christ even tells Peter to lay down his sword and accept that which is to come.

[Ben Kenobi]

But you are missing the crux of my question. Jews are the chosen people. But most of them (a vast majority) reject Yeshua as the Messiah. They reject him as the Son of God. They will not ask him to help them on the way to salvation. Will those people not be saved? Or because they are part of the chosen people does that not matter?

It does matter. Paul even goes on to say, how much better will it be for those who are Jewish to be reconciled with God. He sees it as disastrous that the Jews had rejected Christ himself as he came to Jerusalem specifically for the Jews.

There will be some who are Jews who will be saved, those who came before Christ, and those who even though they profess to be Jews, have opened their hearts to God and his Son. I cannot say who and who will not be saved, that is not up to me.

Fairly early, by 300-400 AD. The writings of Saint John Chrysostum among others were very hostile towards Jews. Many Christians may not have followed those writings, but they were fairly well known and most likely frightened Jews

Thank you. Didn't know that about Crystostem, and I'll have to read up on that and see what he actually said.

I asked the question because I honestly did not know, and in no way did I mean to imply that the animosity was the Jews fault.

And thank you Molly.

You may not like me but that's your problem. Thanks for all the info.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It does matter. Paul even goes on to say, how much better will it be for those who are Jewish to be reconciled with God. He sees it as disastrous that the Jews had rejected Christ himself as he came to Jerusalem specifically for the Jews.

There will be some who are Jews who will be saved, those who came before Christ, and those who even though they profess to be Jews, have opened their hearts to God and his Son. I cannot say who and who will not be saved, that is not up to me.

Thank you. I know Jon said that different Christians believe in different things, but I think what you are saying that you believe that chosen status doesn't confer automatic salvation. That is only if they accept the Savior. (All in theory since none of us knows who is saved)

Thank you. Didn't know that about Crystostem, and I'll have to read up on that and see what he actually said.

I asked the question because I honestly did not know, and in no way did I mean to imply that the animosity was the Jews fault.

It isn't the most unbiased source, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anti-semitism

Scroll down to 'Church Fathers'. It is decently annotated.

As for Chrysostom, he actually wrote a book called "Against the Jews".

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, that I understand, but does that mean that the Jews are not saved, since they don't believe in the divinity of Yeshua of Nazareth?

Did you see my post about through versus beleif in?

Everyone is saved through Jesus.

Even those (who are saved) that don't beleive in Him.

JM