Celebration of our Christian history

[BreezeWood]

The irony that a Hindu (Gandhi) tried to follow what Jesus actually taught while Christendom has done the opposite shows no one should celebrate the history of so-called Christianity.

that subject is never discussed on this forum, the 1st century. by "christians". not selflove but freelove.

they are afraid otherwise than contractual. gandhi undoubtedly would not be any different.

it is the mere fact that the vast majority of humans seem to take offense at a Holy God ...

the "Holy" votto - hasn't a clue.

 

[alang1216]

Such hatred and anger. Tsk tsk. I thought you and Jesus were supposed to love your enemies? But I am glad to hear you have sympathy for those "rich and curmudgeonous" Jews.

The 'toss away line' comes from Matthew 27:
24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.”
25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

I'm not sure how the Canaanites got into this but you may rest assured, no atheist will blame God for the coronavirus.

First, stop the hypocrisy which is a revered trait of atheism. 'And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”' Matthew 27-25

It's a mistaken belief that the Jews have a blood curse because they killed Jesus. Your belief is sometimes used to justify antisemitism and feelings of prejudice against the Jewish people, but this is not what Jesus teaches us in Matthew. Your hypocrisy is evident in how you take things out of context. We do find the Jews did suffer greatly for their sinful utterance. Isn't that enough evidence for you?

However, that isn't my focus here. Where the blame should be squarely placed on is Charles Darwin, his family, and his explanation of Theory of Evolution as pseudoscientific racism.

It isn't my hatred and anger, but Hitler's against the Jews and people he despised for one reason or another. He would've done the same to Jesus, if he were alive, during that awful period based of Darwinism. Hitler was so awful, people thought he was the Antichrist; Hitler was awful, but this didn't turn out to be true.

We find throughout history that the egalitarian ideal of "all people are created equal," which dominates our Western ideology, has not been universal among nations and cultures. I've argued that social Darwinism where Darwin got his "survival of the fittest"slogan led to the eugenics movement. Darwin used it in his Origin of Species book to describe natural selection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin was wrong again. You were wrong once again. Atheists are usually wrong.

Lastly, Darwin was an avid supporter of eugenics which led to its form of genocide and holocaust in the US against blacks.

‘ … modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics — and it was he who created the term “eugenics” — were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’ *

* Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978

The Origins of Christian Anti-Semitism

Prof. Pieter van der Horst

• Christian anti-Semitism began much later than Jesus’ life. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are the historically more reliable ones, Jesus views himself as a messenger of God to the Jews and as a member of the Jewish people.
• The New Testament has several anti-Semitic elements in its chronologically latest documents. The Gospel of John has Jesus call the Jews “sons of the devil.” There is also a case of an anti-Jewish outburst by the Apostle Paul.
• The split between Jewish and gentile Christians brought with it the beginning of Christian anti-Jewish sentiments. In creating a new identity for itself, Christianity attacked the old religion as fiercely as it could, including demonization.
• Toward the end of the fourth century, much-publicized sermons of the church father John Chrysostom combined Christian anti-Jewish elements derived from the New Testament with earlier pagan ones. These themes were gradually integrated into the anti-Jewish discourse of the church.

The Crucifixion of Jesus and the Jews
by Mark Allan Powell
Jesus was crucified as a Jewish victim of Roman violence. On this, all written authorities agree. A Gentile Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, condemned him to death and had him tortured and executed by Gentile Roman soldiers. Jesus was indeed one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.
The New Testament testifies to this basic fact but also allows for Jewish involvement in two ways. First, a few high-ranking Jewish authorities who owed their position and power to the Romans conspired with the Gentile leaders to have Jesus put to death; they are said to have been jealous of Jesus and to have viewed him as a threat to the status quo. Second, an unruly mob of people in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified—the number of persons in this crowd is not given, nor is any motive supplied for their action (except to say that they had been “stirred up,” Mark 15:11).
Whatever the historical circumstances might have been, early Christian tradition clearly and increasingly placed blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews, decreasing the Romans’ culpability. In Matthew, the Roman governor washes his hands of Jesus’ blood while the Jews proclaim, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt 27:25). John’s Gospel portrays Jews as wanting to kill Jesus throughout his ministry (John 5:18, John 7:1, John 8:37). Similar sentiments are found elsewhere, including writings by Paul, who, himself a Jew, had once persecuted Christians (1Thess 2:14-15, Phil 3:5-6).
The reasons for this shift in emphasis are unclear, but one obvious possibility is that, as the church spread out into the world, Romans rather than Jews became the primary targets of evangelism; thus there could have been some motivation to let Romans “off the hook” and blame the Jews for Jesus’ death. This tendency seems to have increased dramatically after the Roman war with the Jews in the late 60s.
In any case, by the middle of the second century, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter portrays the Romans as friends of Jesus, and the Jews as the ones who crucify him. Thus, a Jewish victim of Roman violence was transformed into a Christian victim of Jewish violence. For centuries, such notions fueled anti-Semitism, leading to a crass denunciation of Jews as “Christ-killers.”
Contrary to such projections, Christian theology has always maintained that the human agents responsible for Jesus’ death are irrelevant: he gave his life willingly as a sacrifice for sin (Mark 10:45; John 18:11). Christians regularly confess that it was their sins (not the misdeeds of either Romans or Jews) that brought Jesus to the cross (Rom 5:8-9; 1Tim 1:15). In most liturgical churches, when Matthew’s Passion Narrative is read in a worship service, all members of the congregation are invited to echo Matt 27:25 aloud, crying, “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children!”
Mark Allan Powell, "Crucifixion of Jesus and the Jews", n.p. [cited 3 Apr 2020]. Online: https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/en/passages/related-articles/crucifixion-of-jesus-and-the-jews
Gospel of Peter

Gospel of Peter: apocryphal text about Jesus' trial, burial, and resurrection. The text breaks off when we expect the risen Christ to appear to his disciples

The Gospel of Peter is part of a small book that was discovered in the Egyptian desert by French archaeologists in 1886 or 1887; the book was written at the end of the sixth century, but the text itself dates back to the second half of the second century. It describes Jesus' trial, his burial, resurrection and breaks off when we expect the risen Christ to appear to his disciples. (The original text must have been longer.) Since Peter is the one who tells the story, this text is usually called the Gospel of Peter, although it is uncertain whether this is the real title.

It should be stressed that the tone of this text is anti-Semitic; e.g., the Jewish king Herod Antipas is held responsible for the crucifixion, which was to the best of our knowledge a Roman punishment. Mistakes like this one should be sufficient to ignore this text as a source for the study of the historical Jesus, although it confirms the date of the crucifixion that is mentioned in the Gospel of John ("before the first day of the feast of the Unleavened Bread"). On the other hand, the Gospel of Peter is an important source for the opinions (some) of the first Christians.

You could not rebut any of my arguments. What does it have to do with Hitler, Charles Darwin, Aryan superiority, eugenics in Germany and America, Planned Parenthood, blacks, etc? Yes, it was the Jews who crucified Jesus and they paid dearly for their blood comments. There is no question over this.

Are you now saying that antisemitism is in the Bible? You are scouring your toilet bowl of sources (your last one helps me) just to vilify God's word, Jesus, and Christians again. Who are Prof. Pieter van der Horst and Mark Allan Powell?

Your arguments about Charles Darwin, Aryan superiority, eugenics in Germany and America, Planned Parenthood, blacks, etc. are off topic. I only addressed the Christian history of anti-Semitism.

But you are the gift that keeps on giving:

• "Yes, it was the Jews who crucified Jesus" - Jews had no authority to crucify anyone, that was a punishment only the Romans could do. You are just continuing the tradition of Christians that the Jews killed Jesus.
• "and they paid dearly for their blood comments." - You're implying that the Jews received justice for their crime of deicide, another Christian tradition.
• "Are you now saying that antisemitism is in the Bible?" - Yep. In the earliest Gospel it is the Romans that execute Jesus, in later Gospels it is the Jews that are responsible. Hardly surprising, if you are being persecuted by Rome you wouldn't want to blame them for the killing of your Messiah.

 

[alang1216]

Perhaps this is why Jesus is the ONLY figure in human history that all religions believe was a man of God.

This seems a bold statement and totally with a basis. Jews don't consider him a prophet. I doubt if Hindus or Buddhists do either (just a guess, I don't know much about either). Aside from Christians, it seems only Muslims revere him, just not so much as Muhammad.

Yes, the Jews are hesitant in considering him to be a prophet for obvious reasons. You generally don't anoint someone a saint after condemning them to death.

But yea, everyone else pretty much does consider him a man of God. As Ghandi once famously said, I like your Jesus but don't much like Christians, that is, his dealings with those who called themselves Christian.

But if you are honest, you will take account of how other prophets of God were treated by Jews, men who were murdered and oppressed for what God had to say to them that they did not like. If you ask me, the treatment of Jesus is pretty much the same as to how they treated prophets like Jeremiah

So since you reject Jesus as a prophet of God, let alone the Son of God, was his crucifix Ian and treatment justified in your opinion?

And this is not to dump on the Jews, rather, it is the mere fact that the vast majority of humans seem to take offense at a Holy God, which is why millions of Christians have been slaughtered throughout time for their faith. In fact, why does no one ever talk about the Armenian Genocide of Christians that slaughtered millions? Why did the UN not act when Christians in the Sudan were being slaughtered or act when Christians in Syria, but only seem to act when oil rich tyrants like Qaddafi get out of line?

Yes, the Jews are hesitant in considering him to be a prophet for obvious reasons, but not for the reason you gave. The Jews were expecting a messiah but not one that would suffer and die. The wanted a liberator, a great general or priest, not a criminal who died on a 'tree'.

"was his crucifix Ian and treatment justified in your opinion?" No such torture is justified. He ran afoul of the Jewish authorities but the Romans wouldn't care about a religious disagreement. He was likely condemned because he preached that the end times were near and he and his followers would then rule. As the "king of the Jews" he was a political threat to Rome and they would not abide that.

 

[alang1216]

Wonderful, thank you. Instead of debunking my position you show that Christians still maintain the ugly stereotypes of the Middle Ages.

No ugly stereotype. Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it. So you and your family won't be accusing Christians of creating Hitler. Own your evolution and its relative, eugenics. It's full of hate just like you and Darwin.

More ugliness and hate, you really just keep on giving. Namely giving Christians bad name. I'm pretty sure Jesus never said "Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it".

As I have said before, the one common theme for oppressing Jews, whether it be socialist Nazi Germany, or the Catholic church that now leans left, has been the state oppressing them at the root of it. No other institution in human history has been responsible for the number of murders and slaves as has the state, a state Christ had nothing to do with. And no, being a Christian I don't base my morality on what Hitler or the Pope does or thinks is politically expedient, which is why the Catholic church preaches against the evils of building walls while ignoring the mass genocide of abortion, just like they failed to publically condemn the Holocaust.

As for the teachings of Darwin and Christ, which is to blame the most for the atrocities of the Holocaust?

Here is what Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

So Darwin writes that the weak in society is dragging the human race downward, but for some inexplicable reason says we should have a noble nature and care for them instead of exterminate them. Now what does nobility have to do with science again? Hitler just took the science part and threw away the morality part that men like Jesus preached about.

As for the gospels, the gospel plainly points out that Christ laid down his life that neither Roman nor Jew was responsible.

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

So don't blame the gospels.

Also know that as Hitler rose to power Eugenics and racism were firmly entrenched within the scientific community which did not help matters in the least.

As Darwin once said:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

I'm glad you feel morally superior to a man who lived at the time of Queen Victoria and slavery in the US but I'm not the only one who feels as I do:

The New Testament and Christian antisemitism

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been a source of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:[17]

1. The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide.
2. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.
3. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.
4. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6. The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9. Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.
10. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

The irony that Jesus is portrayed as guilty of antisemitism when Jesus and his followers were all Jews is amazing! The only Bible Jesus and his followers quoted from was the Hebrew Bible (usually the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version).

But, yes, Jesus did expose the hypocrisy of most Jewish religious leaders of his day - noting they were money lovers (Luke 16:14) among other things.

The fact that most religious leaders (clergy) in Christendom accept a salary for their preaching when Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching should also be noted.

I don't think anyone believes Jesus was anything but a devout Jew dedicated to the correct interpretation of Jewish scripture. It was his followers, generally pagan converts who knew little about Jesus, that evolved Christianity into what we know today.

 

[james bond]

Christendom has the most violent history of any group - more than Islam even. [A study of the Crusades proves this.] Gandhi tried to follow what Jesus' taught in his sermon on the mount, including for us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). The irony that a Hindu (Gandhi) tried to follow what Jesus actually taught while Christendom has done the opposite shows no one should celebrate the history of so-called Christianity.

I would say the atheist groups were the most violent and killed the most people if one is keeping score like this. Those wars were more about ideology and political affirmation and dominancy than religion. alang1216 is starting show his true colors by disavowing Jesus and putting the blame on Christianity. The Crusades were about what exactly? It was more about capturing land than Christianity vs Islam. Other times, it was Christians vs pagans or what we have today with Christians vs atheists. If it was about Christian based violence, then it was heralded by the Pope in granting forgiveness of sins by killing your enemy. Obviously, times were much different then.

 

[james bond]

It was his followers, generally pagan converts who knew little about Jesus, that evolved Christianity into what we know today.

. Where do you get such rubbish? If it's from your warped brain, then I get it.

 

[ding]

Wonderful, thank you. Instead of debunking my position you show that Christians still maintain the ugly stereotypes of the Middle Ages.

No ugly stereotype. Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it. So you and your family won't be accusing Christians of creating Hitler. Own your evolution and its relative, eugenics. It's full of hate just like you and Darwin.

More ugliness and hate, you really just keep on giving. Namely giving Christians bad name. I'm pretty sure Jesus never said "Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it".

As I have said before, the one common theme for oppressing Jews, whether it be socialist Nazi Germany, or the Catholic church that now leans left, has been the state oppressing them at the root of it. No other institution in human history has been responsible for the number of murders and slaves as has the state, a state Christ had nothing to do with. And no, being a Christian I don't base my morality on what Hitler or the Pope does or thinks is politically expedient, which is why the Catholic church preaches against the evils of building walls while ignoring the mass genocide of abortion, just like they failed to publically condemn the Holocaust.

As for the teachings of Darwin and Christ, which is to blame the most for the atrocities of the Holocaust?

Here is what Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

So Darwin writes that the weak in society is dragging the human race downward, but for some inexplicable reason says we should have a noble nature and care for them instead of exterminate them. Now what does nobility have to do with science again? Hitler just took the science part and threw away the morality part that men like Jesus preached about.

As for the gospels, the gospel plainly points out that Christ laid down his life that neither Roman nor Jew was responsible.

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

So don't blame the gospels.

Also know that as Hitler rose to power Eugenics and racism were firmly entrenched within the scientific community which did not help matters in the least.

As Darwin once said:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

I'm glad you feel morally superior to a man who lived at the time of Queen Victoria and slavery in the US but I'm not the only one who feels as I do:

The New Testament and Christian antisemitism

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been a source of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:[17]

1. The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide.
2. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.
3. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.
4. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6. The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9. Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.
10. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

The irony that Jesus is portrayed as guilty of antisemitism when Jesus and his followers were all Jews is amazing! The only Bible Jesus and his followers quoted from was the Hebrew Bible (usually the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version).

But, yes, Jesus did expose the hypocrisy of most Jewish religious leaders of his day - noting they were money lovers (Luke 16:14) among other things.

The fact that most religious leaders (clergy) in Christendom accept a salary for their preaching when Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching should also be noted.

I don't think anyone believes Jesus was anything but a devout Jew dedicated to the correct interpretation of Jewish scripture. It was his followers, generally pagan converts who knew little about Jesus, that evolved Christianity into what we know today.

No. The beliefs and traditions of the early Christians informed our beliefs and rituals.

 

[alang1216]

It was his followers, generally pagan converts who knew little about Jesus, that evolved Christianity into what we know today.

. Where do you get such rubbish? If it's from your warped brain, then I get it.

You can do your own homework. Paul never met Jesus and doesn't seem to know much about him beyond his resurrection. Yet he was the big proponent of bringing gentiles into Christianity. Was it the blind leading the blind?

 

[james bond]

Your arguments about Charles Darwin, Aryan superiority, eugenics in Germany and America, Planned Parenthood, blacks, etc. are off topic. I only addressed the Christian history of anti-Semitism.

But you are the gift that keeps on giving:

• "Yes, it was the Jews who crucified Jesus" - Jews had no authority to crucify anyone, that was a punishment only the Romans could do. You are just continuing the tradition of Christians that the Jews killed Jesus.
• "and they paid dearly for their blood comments." - You're implying that the Jews received justice for their crime of deicide, another Christian tradition.
• "Are you now saying that antisemitism is in the Bible?" - Yep. In the earliest Gospel it is the Romans that execute Jesus, in later Gospels it is the Jews that are responsible. Hardly surprising, if you are being persecuted by Rome you wouldn't want to blame them for the killing of your Messiah.

My arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler are what really happened. It even carried on to genocide of blacks in America. I can't help you when you are brainwashed and believe in lies that you spew. In fact, I have more than a mountain facts and history backing me up than your putrid opinions of hate towards Christians.

Jews had the authority from Pontius Pilate. You were the one who pointed it out, you liar and hypocrite. You just relish in your hypocrisy like a pig in slop by saying it:

The 'toss away line' comes from Matthew 27:
24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.”
25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

What do you call it then when the Jews said what they did? Who were their children? I doubt you know much about Judaism either, Mr. Relish.

Finally, you commit blasphemy by saying antisemitism is actually in the Bible. That is the lowest of the low.

You are entitled to you hateful opinions, but it is disgusting and a horrible reflection on you as a person. You've really have turned to the dark side.

 

[james bond]

You can do your own homework. Paul never met Jesus and doesn't seem to know much about him beyond his resurrection. Yet he was the big proponent of bringing gentiles into Christianity. Was it the blind leading the blind?

Yep, it's from your warped brain.

 

[Hollie]

Christendom has the most violent history of any group - more than Islam even. [A study of the Crusades proves this.] Gandhi tried to follow what Jesus' taught in his sermon on the mount, including for us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). The irony that a Hindu (Gandhi) tried to follow what Jesus actually taught while Christendom has done the opposite shows no one should celebrate the history of so-called Christianity.

I would say the atheist groups were the most violent and killed the most people if one is keeping score like this. Those wars were more about ideology and political affirmation and dominancy than religion. alang1216 is starting show his true colors by disavowing Jesus and putting the blame on Christianity. The Crusades were about what exactly? It was more about capturing land than Christianity vs Islam. Other times, it was Christians vs pagans or what we have today with Christians vs atheists. If it was about Christian based violence, then it was heralded by the Pope in granting forgiveness of sins by killing your enemy. Obviously, times were much different then.

It is expected that you would say the atheist groups were the most violent and killed the most people but of course, you would be wrong. Religious extremists are usually wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Your arguments about Charles Darwin, Aryan superiority, eugenics in Germany and America, Planned Parenthood, blacks, etc. are off topic. I only addressed the Christian history of anti-Semitism.

But you are the gift that keeps on giving:

• "Yes, it was the Jews who crucified Jesus" - Jews had no authority to crucify anyone, that was a punishment only the Romans could do. You are just continuing the tradition of Christians that the Jews killed Jesus.
• "and they paid dearly for their blood comments." - You're implying that the Jews received justice for their crime of deicide, another Christian tradition.
• "Are you now saying that antisemitism is in the Bible?" - Yep. In the earliest Gospel it is the Romans that execute Jesus, in later Gospels it is the Jews that are responsible. Hardly surprising, if you are being persecuted by Rome you wouldn't want to blame them for the killing of your Messiah.

My arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler are what really happened. It even carried on to genocide of blacks in America. I can't help you when you are brainwashed and believe in lies that you spew. In fact, I have more than a mountain facts and history backing me up than your putrid opinions of hate towards Christians.

Jews had the authority from Pontius Pilate. You were the one who pointed it out, you liar and hypocrite. You just relish in your hypocrisy like a pig in slop by saying it:

The 'toss away line' comes from Matthew 27:
24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.”
25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

What do you call it then when the Jews said what they did? Who were their children? I doubt you know much about Judaism either, Mr. Relish.

Finally, you commit blasphemy by saying antisemitism is actually in the Bible. That is the lowest of the low.

You are entitled to you hateful opinions, but it is disgusting and a horrible reflection on you as a person. You've really have turned to the dark side.

Actually, the arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler you copy and paste from extremist websites are not at all what really happened.

 

[james bond]

It is expected that you would say the atheist groups were the most violent and killed the most people but of course, you would be wrong. Religious extremists are usually wrong.

Facts not fake beliefs.

Actually, the arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler you copy and paste from extremist websites are not at all what really happened.

What do you have to rebut it? alang1216 just made it up from his warped brain. None of it was from extremist websites. It's historical.

 

[Newtonian]

Wonderful, thank you. Instead of debunking my position you show that Christians still maintain the ugly stereotypes of the Middle Ages.

No ugly stereotype. Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it. So you and your family won't be accusing Christians of creating Hitler. Own your evolution and its relative, eugenics. It's full of hate just like you and Darwin.

More ugliness and hate, you really just keep on giving. Namely giving Christians bad name. I'm pretty sure Jesus never said "Just giving it to you up your rear end so you REMEMBER it".

As I have said before, the one common theme for oppressing Jews, whether it be socialist Nazi Germany, or the Catholic church that now leans left, has been the state oppressing them at the root of it. No other institution in human history has been responsible for the number of murders and slaves as has the state, a state Christ had nothing to do with. And no, being a Christian I don't base my morality on what Hitler or the Pope does or thinks is politically expedient, which is why the Catholic church preaches against the evils of building walls while ignoring the mass genocide of abortion, just like they failed to publically condemn the Holocaust.

As for the teachings of Darwin and Christ, which is to blame the most for the atrocities of the Holocaust?

Here is what Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

So Darwin writes that the weak in society is dragging the human race downward, but for some inexplicable reason says we should have a noble nature and care for them instead of exterminate them. Now what does nobility have to do with science again? Hitler just took the science part and threw away the morality part that men like Jesus preached about.

As for the gospels, the gospel plainly points out that Christ laid down his life that neither Roman nor Jew was responsible.

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

So don't blame the gospels.

Also know that as Hitler rose to power Eugenics and racism were firmly entrenched within the scientific community which did not help matters in the least.

As Darwin once said:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

I'm glad you feel morally superior to a man who lived at the time of Queen Victoria and slavery in the US but I'm not the only one who feels as I do:

The New Testament and Christian antisemitism

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been a source of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:[17]

1. The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide.
2. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.
3. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.
4. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6. The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9. Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.
10. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

The irony that Jesus is portrayed as guilty of antisemitism when Jesus and his followers were all Jews is amazing! The only Bible Jesus and his followers quoted from was the Hebrew Bible (usually the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version).

But, yes, Jesus did expose the hypocrisy of most Jewish religious leaders of his day - noting they were money lovers (Luke 16:14) among other things.

The fact that most religious leaders (clergy) in Christendom accept a salary for their preaching when Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching should also be noted.

I don't think anyone believes Jesus was anything but a devout Jew dedicated to the correct interpretation of Jewish scripture. It was his followers, generally pagan converts who knew little about Jesus, that evolved Christianity into what we know today.

That is a pretty accurate assessment. The entry of violence into so-called Christianity is an interesting and revealing historical study. The earliest Christians were non-violent.

Would you believe some think Jesus was Catholic?

All Bible writers were Jewish, btw.

Amazing that some think they were anti-semitic. But the first schism in the second century CE was between antisemitic western churches under the leadership of Victor, while Polycarp, a quartodeciman, and the second century eastern churches followed apostolic teachings. In fact, the name quartodeciman= 14th-ers was because they observed the last supper on passover night (Nisan 14) as do Jehovah's Witnesses today. Most religions will not observe this on passover night but rather follow this antisemitic teaching of Victor.

 

[Hollie]

It is expected that you would say the atheist groups were the most violent and killed the most people but of course, you would be wrong. Religious extremists are usually wrong.

View attachment 319089
Facts not fake beliefs.

Actually, the arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler you copy and paste from extremist websites are not at all what really happened.

What do you have to rebut it? alang1216 just made it up from his warped brain. None of it was from extremist websites. It's historical.

Communism is a political ideology. Please identify where a communist leader used “Atheism Akbar” or “Atheism is on our side” to further their political system.

Facts, not your silly cut and paste cartoons.

Not odd at all that your silly cut and paste cartoon included Hitler - who was not a communist, but a good Christian boy.

 

[james bond]

That is a pretty accurate assessment. The entry of violence into so-called Christianity is an interesting and revealing historical study. The earliest Christians were non-violent.

So, what do you have to show Christianity was violent based on antisemitism? Are you saying Catholicism was the motivation for Hitler to torture and murder children, women, and men Jews and other groups he hated? Are you saying antisemitism is in the Bible, too?

All Bible writers were Jewish, btw.

It was God's autobiography. He is anthropomorphic and not a Jew.

Who Wrote the Bible? Meet the 35 (Traditional) Authors I don't know who was a Jew (I think you mean race).

 

[james bond]

Communism is a political ideology. Please identify where a communist leader used “Atheism Akbar” or “Atheism is on our side” to further their political system.

Facts, not your silly cut and paste cartoons.

Just like alang1216, you have nothing to rebut it. Just opinion. I'm moving on.

 

[Hollie]

Communism is a political ideology. Please identify where a communist leader used “Atheism Akbar” or “Atheism is on our side” to further their political system.

Facts, not your silly cut and paste cartoons.

Just like alang1216, you have nothing to rebut it. Just opinion. I'm moving on.

Truth hurts?

Buh bye.

 

[james bond]

Truth hurts?

Ironic you said that when I said you'll know -- guaranteed.

 

[alang1216]

My arguments about Charles Darwin, Frances Galton, evolution, eugenics, and Hitler are what really happened. It even carried on to genocide of blacks in America. I can't help you when you are brainwashed and believe in lies that you spew. In fact, I have more than a mountain facts and history backing me up than your putrid opinions of hate towards Christians.

First, I don't love or hate Christians or Christianity. What I do love is history and facts. I find it telling that the only way you seem to be able to defend Christianity is to attack everything and everyone else. That seems a very poor defense.

Jews had the authority from Pontius Pilate. You were the one who pointed it out, you liar and hypocrite. You just relish in your hypocrisy like a pig in slop by saying it:

The 'toss away line' comes from Matthew 27:
24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.”
25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

Sorry but it is a documented fact of history (feel free to look it up) that only the Roman authorities were able to condemn someone to death. Matthew's account contradicts what the other Gospels say so maybe it's not history but theology?

What do you call it then when the Jews said what they did? Who were their children? I doubt you know much about Judaism either, Mr. Relish.

Finally, you commit blasphemy by saying antisemitism is actually in the Bible. That is the lowest of the low.

You are entitled to you hateful opinions, but it is disgusting and a horrible reflection on you as a person. You've really have turned to the dark side.

The accounts of this are different in the different Gospels. Why? It seems the later Gospels place more blame on the Jews than the earlier ones. Maybe they are not historically accurate? I guess that is the dark side of history.