Jesus and the Witch Hunters

[Potoooooooo]

I am reminded of this cartoon from a Native American newspaper

 

[steve_bank]

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The passage indIcates a conservative Jewish rabbi calling Jews back to the traditional ways. Geopolitically a jew talking to Jews as Gandhi was talking to Indians in the context of British occupation.

Jesus was not talking to 'the world', he was talking about Jews getting it together or face destruction by Rome.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, your comments are truly bizarre. If a person was citing antisocial ideas in Mein Kampf, would you criticize them for being hateful? Do you think it's hateful to oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish rhetoric? If not, then why object to my opposing Christ's anti-Jewish rhetoric?

Are you... Godwinning your own thread?

Hitler comes up very often in these debates for a very good reason: He wasn't original in that he hated Jews. Christians around the world and in his native Germany in particular hated Jews and persecuted them long before he did. It appears that he got many of his ideas from Christianity. I see a term has been coined to describe the practice of pointing out this fact to Christians.

Yes, if someone were quoting Mein Kampf as a guide to how the Bible should be "correctly" interpreted, I would consider that foolish if not suspicious behavior, even if they meant it as a ill-advised rhetorical strategy to donk on the Bible.

That's crazy. I never stated nor implied that Mein Kampf should be used as a guide to interpreting the Bible. If you read the Bible the way you read my posts, then I think I can see why you don't know that Jesus advocated violence.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.

I have no problem with you opposing cruelty.

Then why do you oppose my opposing cruelty? You do it for Jesus, of course.

But if along the way you're endorsing bad scholarship, I don't think your efforts will be very effective.

I don't endorse bad scholarship.

Just because you're "right" about a big thing doesn't mean you're right about every argument you put forth in favor of it.

Then I'll keep on posting sound arguments. I'll be happy to show you how.

 

[Politesse]

No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.

I have no problem with you opposing cruelty.

Then why do you oppose my opposing cruelty? You do it for Jesus, of course.

But if along the way you're endorsing bad scholarship, I don't think your efforts will be very effective.

I don't endorse bad scholarship.

Just because you're "right" about a big thing doesn't mean you're right about every argument you put forth in favor of it.

Then I'll keep on posting sound arguments. I'll be happy to show you how.

Arguments, certainly.

 

[steve_bank]

Hitler initially rejected religion, but realized he could use it. We covered it in a pollical science class. Nazi propaganda made use of veiled religious symbols. including the infamous film Triumph Of The Will. Ther were Christian leaders who opposed Hitler and they paid for it. In general, they went along.

In Mein Kemph it was 'Jews killed Jesus'.

Religion had been waning in Germany and Christian leaders jumped on the Nazi platform of traditional German values.

Jews traditionally did not think much of outsiders. As I understand it the words gentile and pagan were more of a slur.

When Christians developed an identity septate from heretic Jews, they coopted the bible as their own and rejected Jews.

Early Christian sects were violent and intolerant. The Nicaean council was a compromise truce on theology.

There is nothing in the gospels about universal love and community outside of the Jews. Jesus was preaching to Jews. What we hae as modern Christianity is more Paulism who sunnitized Jewishness for gentiles. No dietary and circumcision requirements. It is nio circumcision that nade you a Jew, it is what is in the heart.

The oassge about marriage being one woman nad one man pretty much precludes gay marriage, yet there are gays who become Chrtian and find a minister to marry them.

Churchianity morphs to reflect he times and culture.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.

 

[steve_bank]

That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.

Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?

 

[lostone]

Zealous Christianity has done much harm to humankind over many centuries, but so have all the children of Judaic monotheism. It is rather ironic that the Jewish founders of the line have suffered so much from their children. Perhaps monotheism in itself encourages intolerance and zealotry. Being religious in itself, however, does nothing to justify being despised. Pantheists and Wicca proponents, for example, tend to be harmless, even if they often do seem to be a bit loose in the head.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.

Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?

No.

 

[steve_bank]

That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.

Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?

No.

Then maybe there is hope for humans.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Then maybe there is hope for humans.

I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've noticed that whenever I point out the hatred for unbelievers that's inherent in Christianity, then I am accused of hating Christians. If I accuse the KKK of holding beliefs that are based in hatred for ethnic minorities, would you ask me if I hate Klan members by virtue of their being Klan members?

 

[Politesse]

Then maybe there is hope for humans.

I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've noticed that whenever I point out the hatred for unbelievers that's inherent in Christianity, then I am accused of hating Christians. If I accuse the KKK of holding beliefs that are based in hatred for ethnic minorities, would you ask me if I hate Klan members by virtue of their being Klan members?

Were you to ask me, I'd say no.

But I'd give you the same sort of dismissive shrug I give all of your proselytizing efforts if you started trying to extend the judgement to, say, everyone who happens to live in the American South. People are complicated, hate is simple.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Were you to ask me, I'd say no.

I think you are missing my point. The question posed to me is a red-herring fallacy because how much I may or may not hate Christians is completely irrelevant to the hatred for unbelievers in Christ's doctrines. The question posed to me was a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the topic of hatred in Christianity and put me on the defensive. In other words, "accuse the accuser."

But I'd give you the same sort of dismissive shrug I give all of your proselytizing efforts if you started trying to extend the judgement to, say, everyone who happens to live in the American South. People are complicated, hate is simple.

To conclude that a statement is untrue by dismissing it is also a fallacy because true statements can be dismissed.

 

[Politesse]

Were you to ask me, I'd say no.

I think you are missing my point. The question posed to me is a red-herring fallacy because how much I may or may not hate Christians is completely irrelevant to the hatred for unbelievers in Christ's doctrines. The question posed to me was a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the topic of hatred in Christianity and put me on the defensive. In other words, "accuse the accuser."

But I'd give you the same sort of dismissive shrug I give all of your proselytizing efforts if you started trying to extend the judgement to, say, everyone who happens to live in the American South. People are complicated, hate is simple.

To conclude that a statement is untrue by dismissing it is also a fallacy because true statements can be dismissed.

Most of your assertions are too vague and subjective to treat as serious arguments. You think Jesus hated everyone, someone else thinks he loved everyone, you quote some verses where he sounds kind of angry, they quote some verses where he sounds kind of nice, you both dismiss each other's arguments and every "conversation" with you about religion is apt to end exactly the same way, yes?

I mean, I've made the case in this thread that your thesis makes no sense relative to Jesus' known teachings on love. Did you make a reasoned argument in response? Of course not. You insisted that Jesus meant (according to you) the love a master and slave have for each other, no citation that time. I pointed out that your interpretation of Jesus' teachings on the law were inconsistent with any of his other teachings on the law or actions with respect to the law and you... almost entirely ignored that one, offering only the non-sequitur that Jesus said nothing specifically about witches, even though logically if that is the case, your entire argument hangs on whether or not your interpretation of his teachings on jurisprudence are accurate - the part of my counterargument that you resolutely ignored.

This style of "argumentation" is deeply annoying. Short of re-iterating my point, there's nothing I can really add if you're not going to engage in honest discussion of the issues that you raise.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Most of your assertions are too vague and subjective to treat as serious arguments.

Well, that's an awfully vague and subjective thing to assert, is it not?

You think Jesus hated everyone...

I don't think Jesus hated everybody. I understand he loved one of his apostles very much which evidently was a special kind of love he had for no other man. Hmmm, but that's best left for another thread.

...someone else thinks he loved everyone...

They are easily corrected.

...you quote some verses where he sounds kind of angry, they quote some verses where he sounds kind of nice...

I make a point of engaging both kinds of evidence.

...you both dismiss each other's arguments and every "conversation" with you about religion is apt to end exactly the same way, yes?

I'm not sure, but if any person is willing to accept sound arguments, then I will convince them. If they are willfully ignorant and irrational, then that's nothing for them to boast about.

I mean, I've made the case in this thread that your thesis makes no sense relative to Jesus' known teachings on love. Did you make a reasoned argument in response? Of course not. You insisted that Jesus meant (according to you) the love a master and slave have for each other, no citation that time.

Pointing out the nature of the love Jesus reputedly taught is very well reasoned in that it differentiates modern notions of love with his notions of love. Since the two kinds of love are significantly different, it is simply wrong to assume Jesus taught love in the modern sense of the word, a false assumption that many defenders of the faith make often.

And I'm not sure what citation is needed to see that Jesus taught love by slaves for their master. Did you not know that he commanded this love like a master commands allegiance from his slaves? Are you unaware that Jesus used master-slave relationships in his rhetoric?

Anyway, if you want more information regarding this topic, then see Fighting Words and The Bad Jesus by Hector Avalos.

I pointed out that your interpretation of Jesus' teachings on the law were inconsistent with any of his other teachings on the law or actions with respect to the law...

That's easy to explain: Jesus often contradicted himself, or so it seems. He taught both love and hate, for example.

...and you almost entirely ignored that one, offering only the non-sequitur that Jesus said nothing specifically about witches, even though logically if that is the case, your entire argument hangs on whether or not your interpretation of his teachings on jurisprudence are accurate - the part of my counterargument that you resolutely ignored.

And you are ignoring the fact that we are told that Jesus said he had not come to do away with the law, something I already explained included the injunction that witches be killed. That's no non sequitur on my part. It follows from set theory. Since the law to kill witches is an element of the set of the laws of Moses, then it is an element of the set of the dogmas Jesus taught because the laws of Moses is a subset of the set of dogmas Jesus taught. In mathematical notation:

k = The Law to Kill Witches
M = The Set of Laws Attributed to Moses
J = The Set of Laws Attributed to Jesus

Since k ∈ M, and M ⊆ J, then k ∈ J.

This style of "argumentation" is deeply annoying.

Losing debates is very annoying, I imagine.

Short of re-iterating my point, there's nothing I can really add if you're not going to engage in honest discussion of the issues that you raise.

I've always been honest. Even if I was dishonest, it's a fallacy to say I'm necessarily wrong because dishonest people can be right.

 

[Politesse]

Pointing out the nature of the love Jesus reputedly taught is very well reasoned in that it differentiates modern notions of love with his notions of love. Since the two kinds of love are significantly different, it is simply wrong to assume Jesus taught love in the modern sense of the word, a false assumption that many defenders of the faith make often.

I made no such assumption.... Did you? Because you haven't yet demonstrated your point with any sort of actual textual evidence, or even made it clear what exactly your point is. But it definitely hinges on your knowing what Jesus "meant" by love (presumably ἀγάπη?) rather than what he actually said about it, which suggests you believe he was referring to the love of slaves and masters every time he referenced it.

And stop referencing "many defenders of the faith" and other such imaginary foes. If they exist, they have no bearing on this conversation until one of them shows up. Focus on who you're talking to: two people who have not provided you with any such convenient strawman argument.

That's easy to explain: Jesus often contradicted himself, or so it seems. He taught both love and hate, for example.

A rather glib response, all human beings at times contradict themselves but that's quite irrelevant to the question of what someone meant by a particular statement. You're the one making a claim that Jesus "meant" something he didn't say, here. If Jesus was generally unreliable and inconsistent, why is it you think he would be any more consistent in his teachings on law (and witchcraft I suppose, had he said anything about it) than his teachings on love?

And you are ignoring the fact that we are told that Jesus said he had not come to do away with the law, something I already explained included the injunction that witches be killed. That's no non sequitur on my part. It follows from set theory. Since the law to kill witches is an element of the set of the laws of Moses, then it is an element of the set of the dogmas Jesus taught because the laws of Moses is a subset of the set of dogmas Jesus taught. In mathematical notation:

k = The Law to Kill Witches
M = The Set of Laws Attributed to Moses
J = The Set of Laws Attributed to Jesus

Since k ∈ M, and M ⊆ J, then k ∈ J.

While I think the conceit of phrasing philosophical arguments as math equations is sophomoric, you have broken down your own argument accurately, here. Unfortunately, your argument is missing some crucial elements, such as demonstrating that Jesus understood the Law of Moses the same way that you do: that is, as a whole body whose modern form is infallible and meant to be both literally interpreted and assiduously followed word for word. I have presented evidence that he did not, in fact, see the Law in this way, because a core element of his teachings involved demonstrating cases where blindly following the Law of Moses (stoning someone to death as the law prescribes, for instance) might lead someone into moral error. Where is your evidence that Jesus was, in fact, referring to the same "Law" (Torah) as you, and thought that it should be followed in the way you propose? When that seems to contradict nearly everything else he said about the Torah of God?

 

[steve_bank]

Then maybe there is hope for humans.

I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've noticed that whenever I point out the hatred for unbelievers that's inherent in Christianity, then I am accused of hating Christians. If I accuse the KKK of holding beliefs that are based in hatred for ethnic minorities, would you ask me if I hate Klan members by virtue of their being Klan members?

Sounds like you are being crucified? Not really.

If we act like that which we oppose what does that make us atheists?

I take a basic principle of Churchianity to be love your enemies. Not a bad idea. It does not mean any kind of pacifism; it means don't let the anger of others draw you in.

My chronic point is while we go after religion on the forum, the shortcomings of religion are not exclusive to religion.

Every year ANTIFA and Bloc show up in Seatle dressed like Ninja in black throwing fire bombs and casing destruction. I have personally seen them running around the streets. While I have issues with religion, it is not a treat of any consequence to my freedoms. COTUS is holding.

The anger some of it understandable much of it not in our current at times armed civil unrest is far more of a threat. In Portland ANIFA and white supremacists were shooting at each other.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Pointing out the nature of the love Jesus reputedly taught is very well reasoned in that it differentiates modern notions of love with his notions of love. Since the two kinds of love are significantly different, it is simply wrong to assume Jesus taught love in the modern sense of the word, a false assumption that many defenders of the faith make often.

I made no such assumption.... Did you?

Well, obviously I didn't assume that modern notions of love and the love in the Gospels are the same because I've been arguing against that assumption. Since you say that you don't assume that Jesus' love and modern love are the same, then how do they differ?

Because you haven't yet demonstrated your point with any sort of actual textual evidence, or even made it clear what exactly your point is.

It might help if you would make clear which "point" of mine you are referring to. I've learned to avoid offering "evidence on demand" when what I'm claiming is either common knowledge, easily verified, or something that will be rejected regardless of evidence.

But it definitely hinges on your knowing what Jesus "meant" by love (presumably ἀγάπη?) rather than what he actually said about it, which suggests you believe he was referring to the love of slaves and masters every time he referenced it.

I know of no passage that has Jesus telling people to love for the sake of love. Rather, he commands people to love and often offers rewards in exchange for obedience and threatens punishment for disobedience. Do you love any friend of yours because you were commanded to or because you wanted a reward in exchange for that love? Do you love any friend because you fear being punished if you don't? The love Jesus taught only makes sense in a relationship between some powerful, fearful authority and one of that authority's subjects.

And stop referencing "many defenders of the faith" and other such imaginary foes. If they exist, they have no bearing on this conversation until one of them shows up. Focus on who you're talking to: two people who have not provided you with any such convenient strawman argument.

LOL--I see one of those fearsome masters has shown up to command her slaves to love and obey her. Seriously, there are many defenders of the Christian faith yourself included. Others include Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

...all human beings at times contradict themselves...

Right, and they are making the same error Jesus did. No error is excused because more than one person makes that error.

...but that's quite irrelevant to the question of what someone meant by a particular statement. You're the one making a claim that Jesus "meant" something he didn't say, here. If Jesus was generally unreliable and inconsistent, why is it you think he would be any more consistent in his teachings on law (and witchcraft I suppose, had he said anything about it) than his teachings on love?

Meaning something that is not stated explicitly happens all the time. It's called "implying." Since Jesus said he was upholding the laws of Moses, then he was upholding the law to murder witches. That's clearly implied. Yes, he evidently sometimes failed to consistently uphold some of the laws, but that doesn't mean he would always fail to do so with all of the laws. So in absence of any direct evidence that Jesus opposed the law to murder witches, I think I'm justified in concluding that he probably did uphold it.

While I think the conceit of phrasing philosophical arguments as math equations is sophomoric...

An argument is not unsound no matter how conceited or sophomoric you imagine it to be. Many "conceited, sophomoric" arguments are right, in particular the ones that threaten your faith in what you want to believe.

Unfortunately, your argument is missing some crucial elements, such as demonstrating that Jesus understood the Law of Moses the same way that you do: that is, as a whole body whose modern form is infallible and meant to be both literally interpreted and assiduously followed word for word. I have presented evidence that he did not, in fact, see the Law in this way, because a core element of his teachings involved demonstrating cases where blindly following the Law of Moses (stoning someone to death as the law prescribes, for instance) might lead someone into moral error. Where is your evidence that Jesus was, in fact, referring to the same "Law" (Torah) as you, and thought that it should be followed in the way you propose? When that seems to contradict nearly everything else he said about the Torah of God?

You're making this whole issue out to be much more complicated than it is. The law to murder witches is very clear and simple: "You will not allow a witch to live." I interpret this law as a command to kill supposed witches. There's very little leeway here regarding the meaning of this injunction. How else would Jesus interpret it? If Jesus believed that this law should be disobeyed, then he upheld sin, something he always preached against. If he upheld it, then he condoned the murder of witches.

So take your pick: Jesus the sinner, or Jesus the murder advocate and founder of the witch hunters.

 

[Politesse]

So take your pick: Jesus the sinner, or Jesus the murder advocate and founder of the witch hunters.

That one is easy: the sinner. If "sin" causes you to love your fellow human being and eschew violence, it is no sin to me. The rest, is going to take some unpacking.