ad,
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.
There’s so much wrong with those few words that it’s genuinely hard to know where to begin.
First, you have no idea whether Jesus even existed at all, let alone that he was a “Messiah and God”. All you actually know is that a book
says these things, and that you choose to believe it to be accurate.
Simply assuming that and proceeding accordingly is called the fallacy of reification.
Second, again you use the phrase “the Jews” as if the tiny number who would have been involved even if it did happen were and are somehow representative of the attitudes of all Jews past and present.
This is called the fallacy of composition.
Third, as I understand it this “God” of yours “gave his own son in sacrifice to atone for our sins” or some such. If this god actually did that then it was a put up job all along, and “He” just played "the Jews" (who were supposedly responsible) for patsies.
This is called the fallacy of scapegoating.
Fourth, without "the Jews" following the script "God" had written for them, all that subsequent atonement for Christians wouldn't have happened.
You should be thanking them, not blaming them.
Fifth, according to the story Jesus was only dead for three days in any case, something presumably an omniscient god would have known would be the case. These "conspiring Jews" of yours would have caused horrible pain no doubt, but not death in any permanent sense. If, say, a gang of Chinese people attacked someone who was in a coma for three days and then recovered, would you forever after blame “the Chinese” for putting someone “to death”?
Why not?
Sixth, what lots of people “continue to reject” is
a story about Christ that you on the other hand happen to think to be true. So far as I can see moreover, those who do reject it do so for good reason – ie because the evidence is either absent or hopeless. That does not however put someone “under the banner” (whatever that means) of an allegedly violent gang some 2,000 years ago.
Seventh, the god in which you believe is as I understand it supposed to be omnibenevolent. A story that involves a blood sacrifice (albeit only for a few days) for the “sins” (which turn out to be whatever a books says this god says they are) that the rest of us commit to be washed away is a morally contemptible cop out. If I behaved badly, then I like to think that I’d have the decency to take the consequences rather than engage in a tawdry exchange of my self-respect for a free pass.
Moreover, I happen to think that societies would be more humane if
everyone thought that rather than some of them cling to the frankly bizarre notion that a deathbed conversion would get them off the hook no matter what they'd done.
Eighth, have you any sense of where blaming whole races and ethnicities for the supposed crimes of a tiny number of them long ago tends to end up? Of the rationale this morally degrading idiocy provides for those with the intention and means of wiping them out
en masse?
Anything?
Ninth…
…well, as you’ll presumably ignore this as you do so much else I don’t see much point in continuing. I could though if I thought any of it would impinge on what passes for your consciousness.
Really, I could.
