Replies

”Of coarse communities have such concepts. Which is why I think of humans as more than mere biochemical machines. Which in turn stands as evidence inconsistent with the predictions made by naturalism. “

Too bad then that these things are already perfectly consistent with a naturalistic world view. Why explain them using magic” when no such explanation is necessary? It reminds me of when Napoleon complained to Laplace that his epic volume on mathematics never once referred to God. Laplace responded simply, “Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.”

”Wait a minute...you are saying its too bad that Christians aren't following "revealed truth" now? “

Well, in the first place, what I was saying is that you are being disingenuous by ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament (let’s not even get started on the Old) by pretending that two quotations from Jesus constitute the whole of “revealed truth” found in them. The entire set of books is supposed to be “revealed truth,” so you cannot run away from the cow to skim the cream.

But ultimately, of course they’re not following “revealed truth” since there is no reason to believe there is any such thing. They are following the product of ordinary human artifice under the false belief they are “revealed truths.” This is how such patent and atrocious immorality as the holocaust gains its temporary ascendancy. People falsely believe that God has given them permission to slaughter their fellows.

Do not mistake my arguendo acceptance of "revealed truth" for the sake of discussion as agreement that there really is such a thing.

”Jesus was not calling "the Jews" the sons of Satan, but particular Jews. You do get that Jesus was a Jew right? He was calling out religious leaders of the time for being corrupt hypocrites who loved the power and authority and honor of their station, but were not true to the Word of God. Do you have some reading comprehension difficulty I should know about? I am amazed you missed this. “

Why are you accusing me of a reading comprehension problem here when the early church father’s all understood that passage exactly as I have portrayed it? Even Augustine wrote a Diatribe Against the Jews and (like Martin Luther later) used exactly this passage along with the rest of the Gospel of John to justify their anti-Semitism. If I have such a problem, then I share it with the greatest theologians of Christianity.

Worse... based upon your previous post even you accept and embrace the image of the Jews from the Gospel of John as "Christ Killers." I imagine that embarrassment keeps you from acknowledging that you were already called out on your justification of the Holocaust as payback for the murder of Jesus. But your paper trail is already in place.

”Now suppose, I as an American Christian call out some T.V. preacher for only being interested in money and high living, and for not following the ways of Jesus. Are you going to then accuse me of hating American Christians? Get Real!”

No. I would instead accuse you of being out of lockstep with historical Christianity.

”Uhm, perhaps I am the one with the reading comprehension problem. I have read this gospel and studied it quite a bit, and somehow completely missed this. Could you be more specific as to where this directive to persecute Jews is?”

If you have completely missed it, I cannot help you. I can only point out to you that historical Christianity and the Church fathers did not miss it. Although the actual “blood curse” ("His blood be upon us and upon our children.") is found in Matthew, it is in the Gospel of John that greatest efforts are made by the author to shift the responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion most firmly from the Romans to the Jews. Throughout John, “the Jews” is used as a collective term for the entire Jewish people rather than a small number of Jewish leaders among the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees. It is simply an acknowledged and tragic fact of history that through Gospel of John, the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus became fixed in the Christian mind.

Now... it appears that you have selected as you rationalization here that the Gospel of John has simple been tragically misunderstood by 2000 thousand years of Christianity. And my only response to that is to reflect upon the competence of its author. Certainly, a competent God might have anticipated that reaction and written a subtly different book, thus saving millions of “His chosen people.”

You know, I an humble enough to expect very little from God. But one thing I would expect is the ability to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose.

Too bad then that these things are already perfectly consistent with a naturalistic world view.

Not one soul really believes that.

Well, in the first place, what I was saying is that you are being disingenuous by ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament (let’s not even get started on the Old) by pretending that two quotations from Jesus constitute the whole of “revealed truth” found in them. The entire set of books is supposed to be “revealed truth,” so you cannot run away from the cow to skim the cream.

Ignoring nothing! I am only bringing up the most relevant points. Jesus being the most relevant represenitive of Christian revealed truth, and the statement of what he asserted were the two most pivotal commandments upon which all morality is based as being the most relevant.

My respect for Christianity is pretty profound, and I am very dedicated to understanding the entire NT correctly.

Why are you accusing me of a reading comprehension problem here when the early church father’s all understood that passage exactly as I have portrayed it?

Because Jesus made it plainly clear that he was referring specifically to the religious leaders and nobody but a dope or bigot who bothered to read it in context could have possibly missed it! Thus after making sure what your position is, and making sure I did not mis understand you, I have to hold that you are too bigoted to objectively read the plain words of the gospels, and you have definitively proven me right in front of all but your self.

Have fun projecting back at me, but it won't work for anyone who is not also willfully blind.

EW: But ultimately, of course they’re not following “revealed truth” since there is no reason to believe there is any such thing.

Spirited: Man has always lived by revelation. The foundations of your arguments, disclaimers, and in fact, the entirety of everything you believe is true, has its’ ultimate source in revelation. The occult-—shamanism, channeling, the mystery traditions, magic-—all came roaring back during the Renaissance.

Emmanual Swedenborg, for instance, had appear to him a discarnate entity that called itself ‘god.’ Swedenborg accepted its’ claim without question, thus commencing a relationship wherein under the controlling influence of this entity, Swedenborg rewrote the Bible, incorporating within the revised version, Hermeticism, among other magic traditions. Swedenborg’s ‘revealed’ knowledge and rewritten Bible became the catalyst for Tubengin’s Higher Criticism and for what is known as Liberal Christianity.

Feuerbach reworked Hegel’s Hermetic magic-formula. Engels, Marx, and many others accepted the reworked magic formula without question, and incorporated it within their own systems.

What you believe to be true, real, false, etc., has its basis in spirit revelations.