Protestantism

[Dicky Underpants]

They're still refered to as the "muderers of God" in our Good Friday liturgy.

You're happy with that?

[Anchorman]

Beauty? I can think of a lot of things to describe it, but beauty isn't one of them.
[/quote



-
Have you ever attended an Orthodox service, then?
Because I have - and, yes, there is an etherial beauty to it, even though I find some of the premis flawed.

[ad_orientem]

You're happy with that?

Why not? Orthodox believers have been fine with it for two thousand years so I see no reason to gainsay it, indeed, both the Apostle St. Peter and St. Stephen Protomartyr both confirm it.

[Shaker]

Like its attitude to women. Or gay people. Or Jewish people. Or not.

Unless of course they are just ad-o's personal prejudices dressed up as Orthodoxy.

Oddly enough - or not - said prejudices were precisely and exactly the same back in the days when the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was God's final and absolutely bestest and most favouritest absolute truth ever ever ever with jam on top. So you could be on to something.

Still, the iconography is nice. And the music.

Yes, I'll definitely give you the music - belting stuff.

[Dicky Underpants]

Why not? Orthodox believers have been fine with it for two thousand years so I see no reason to gainsay it, indeed, both the Apostle St. Peter and St. Stephen Protomartyr both confirm it.

Bugger the Apostle St Peter and St Stephen Protomartyr. A howling mob around Christ's cross does not constitute the whole of the Jewish people at that time or throughout the ages (always supposing that gospel record is correct) - something which even the Catholic Church eventually and very belatedly acknowledged. Nor does their supposed cry "His blood be upon us and upon our children" provide any justification for the vilification of the whole Jewish diaspora down the centuries (again, always supposing that there were any such people in the supposed mob who were shouting that).

[Shaker]

Why not?

Well now; how about because it's vile?

Orthodox believers have been fine with it for two thousand years so I see no reason to gainsay it, indeed, both the Apostle St. Peter and St. Stephen Protomartyr both confirm it.

There's a fallacy ripe for the plucking here; a packet of virtual fruit pastilles for the first one to name it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

There's a fallacy ripe for the plucking here; a packet of virtual fruit pastilles for the first one to name it.

It's the fallacy of composition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Essentially he's saying that, because a relatively tiny number of Jews (allegedly) did something bad a long time ago, so anyone who happens to have been Jewish since is to blame for it too. It really is that contemptible.

The nazis took the same line I believe.

[Gordon]

Well now; how about because it's vile?
There's a fallacy ripe for the plucking here; a packet of virtual fruit pastilles for the first one to name it.

In the post of ad's you quote I'll go for the fallacy double: we have both authority and tradition in evidence here so a I claim not just the virtual fruit pastilles but an additional packet of virtual fruit gums too. There is an implied ad pop too, but I won't claim for that for dental reasons.

[Shaker]

In the post of ad's you quote I'll go for the fallacy double: we have both authority and tradition in evidence here so a I claim not just the virtual fruit pastilles but an additional packet of virtual fruit gums too. There is an implied ad pop too, but I won't claim for that for dental reasons.

Chuck in an ad antiquitatem while you're at it, ring the dentist and to hell with it.

[Rhiannon]

Why not? Orthodox believers have been fine with it for two thousand years so I see no reason to gainsay it, indeed, both the Apostle St. Peter and St. Stephen Protomartyr both confirm it.

But it's not actually true, is it? Leaving aside the fallacies noted, what about the method of execution used?

[ad_orientem]

But it's not actually true, is it? Leaving aside the fallacies noted, what about the method of execution used?

It was the Jews who conspired to put their own Messiah and God to death, forcing Pilate's hand who lacked the moral fortitude to do the right thing. By continuing to reject Christ they still fall under that banner.

[Shaker]

It was the Jews who conspired to out their own Messiah and God to death, forcing Pilate's hand who lacked the moral fortitude to do the right thing. By continuing to reject Christ they still fall under that banner.

And this month's prize for Spectacularly Failing to Answer the Question goes to ...

By continuing to reject Christ they still fall under that banner.

Does that also apply to Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc.?

[ad_orientem]

And this month's prize for Spectacularly Failing to Answer the Question goes to ...

It answers Rhiannon's question.

[ad_orientem]

And this month's prize for Spectacularly Failing to Answer the Question goes to ...
Does that also apply to Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc.?

No, because the did not have the Law and the Prophets.

[Shaker]

It answers Rhiannon's question.

Rhiannon's question was "What about the method of execution used?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's quite simple. Had he said "I was angry because I realised that God did not exist", that would have been a meaningful statement. But to be angry with something you've decided does not exist shows a contempt for reason (and the English language) of no common order.

No I think Lewis was saying that his atheism did not effectively police his emotions i.e. he had some. Cue New atheist bravado about coming to terms with the abyss or feeling Joy when they received the atheist epiphany. That I'm sure the great man would write off as ''A put up Job''.

As Augustine before him he explored his feelings and both gave himself to Christ and realised that his previous atheist construct was part of the avoidance of God behaviour.

Underpants here equates Reason with feeling and that from somebody criticising The Great Man is definitely Second Rate...but even that is an improvement on the third rate I come across on this forum.

[ad_orientem]

Rhiannon's question was "What about the method of execution used?"

Yes it answers that because Rhiannon's implication is clearly that because Christ was crucified the Romans bear the guilt not the Jews.

[Shaker]

Yes it answers that because Rhiannon's implication is clearly that because Christ was crucified the Romans bear the guilt not the Jews.

Whoever may have been responsible then - if anyone - nobody is now.

[DaveM]

It was the Jews who conspired to put their own Messiah and God to death, forcing Pilate's hand who lacked the moral fortitude to do the right thing. By continuing to reject Christ they still fall under that banner.

Even with the understanding we have today, if I had been standing amongst that crowd before Pilate on that early Friday morning in April AD30, I would have had no choice but to join in the chorus of cries to ‘Crucify Him’.  And that applies equally to you and to all of us.  We all need a crucified Christ to deal effectively with our own individual sins.  So we are all equally guilty of being the agents of Jesus’ death and have no moral right to cast all the blame on the Jewish people or their Roman accomplices

[Shaker]

No I think Lewis was saying that his atheism did not effectively police his emotions i.e. he had some.

Was Lewis so unclear that we need the likes of you to tell us what he actually meant, like, really.

Cue New atheist bravado about coming to terms with the abyss or feeling Joy when they received the atheist epiphany. That I'm sure the great man would write off as ''A put up Job''.

Doubtless: but with his, for want of a far better word, thinking shown up as lacking to say the least, what's that worth?

As Augustine before him he explored his feelings and both gave himself to Christ and realised that his previous atheist construct was part of the avoidance of God behaviour.

Which again isn't possible for an actual atheist.

Underpants here equates Reason with feeling and that from somebody criticising The Great Man is definitely Second Rate...but even that is an improvement on the third rate I come across on this forum.

This forum being the one you lied about leaving.

[Shaker]

Even with the understanding we have today, if I had been standing amongst that crowd before Pilate on that early Friday morning in April AD30, I would have had no choice but to join in the chorus of cries to ‘Crucify Him’.  And that applies equally to you and to all of us.

Doesn't apply to me; but then, I'm not a bloodthirsty twat.

We all need a crucified Christ to deal effectively with our own individual sins.

As I've never committed any so-called "sins", I don't. Moreover, even if I had, I'd still consider it the acme of nonsense to consider that my wrongdoings can be paid off by another party. Scapegoating is only for those with a minimal or even absent sense of personal responsibility. As Hitch put it, if I commit a minor crime - a low-level traffic offence for instance - someone else may, in a compassionate and altruistic mood, decide to pay my fine for me; nevertheless, I'm still the one who committed the offence.

So we are all equally guilty of being the agents of Jesus’ death and have no moral right to cast all the blame on the Jewish people or their Roman accomplices

Nope. Feel free to hold yourself responsible for an ancient execution if that's how you get your jollies; I'm not involved however.

[ad_orientem]

Even with the understanding we have today, if I had been standing amongst that crowd before Pilate on that early Friday morning in April AD30, I would have had no choice but to join in the chorus of cries to ‘Crucify Him’.  And that applies equally to you and to all of us.  We all need a crucified Christ to deal effectively with our own individual sins.  So we are all equally guilty of being the agents of Jesus’ death and have no moral right to cast all the blame on the Jewish people or their Roman accomplices

As I said, the Jews has the Law and the Prophets and continue today to reject Christ.

[Rhiannon]

As I said, the Jews has the Law and the Prophets and continue today to reject Christ.

But they didn't kill him. Did they? Come on, be honest. Which regime executed him?

[Shaker]

As I said, the Jews has the Law and the Prophets and continue today to reject Christ.

In the words of S. J. Fry, so fucking what?

[Anchorman]

Even with the understanding we have today, if I had been standing amongst that crowd before Pilate on that early Friday morning in April AD30, I would have had no choice but to join in the chorus of cries to ‘Crucify Him’.  And that applies equally to you and to all of us.  We all need a crucified Christ to deal effectively with our own individual sins.  So we are all equally guilty of being the agents of Jesus’ death and have no moral right to cast all the blame on the Jewish people or their Roman accomplices

Yep.
Theologically sound.
'Nuff said.