Is Christianity Cruel?

[Dee Dee Warren]

[pos]http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/links/STR.jpg[/pos]STAND TO REASON

Is Christianity Cruel?

By Greg Koukl


Christianity has been called cruel because it teaches that Jews killed Jesus and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. The first incites persecution; the second denies that goodness matters in God’s assessment. This challenge, though, misunderstands both the nature of history and the nature of justice.

Is Christianity Cruel?

Moviegoers will soon get an eyeful from Academy Award-winning producer Mel Gibson. His latest film, “The Passion,” chronicles the final twelve hours in the life of Jesus, including the most authentic—and graphic—portrayal to date of the brutality Jesus experienced at the hands of His executioners.

Though the movie is not even in distribution yet, the controversy has already begun. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has weighed in with their concern. Since Vatican II in the 60s, the Catholic Church has vigorously disavowed Jews’ responsibility for Jesus’ death, a view that historically has been used as grounds for persecution of Jews as “Christ killers.”

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League also expressed alarm. “Will [the “Passion”] correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus?” they wondered, according to the Washington Post.

Jewish leaders have long been deeply sensitive to any characterization of Christ’s passion that would transfer guilt collectively to the Jews. Even prominent pro-Christian Jewish thinker Dennis Prager has voiced misgivings about Christianity in this area. In a piece entitled “When Religion Makes People Cruel” I found this comment: “Historically, the greatest evidence of the ability of religion to make a person cruel can be found among believing Christians.”

The general point of the article was a good one: Sometimes the directives of a particular religion seem at odds with basic morality. But is Christianity guilty here? Do the specific teachings of the New Testament produce cruel people and cruel situations?

Prager gave two examples. First, pogroms against Jews have been justified because the Christian Bible blamed Jews for killing Jesus. Second, Christianity is cruel because it teaches that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

The first point is a serious non-sequitur. The second errs principally because of a misunderstanding of the role of goodness in salvation, an issue even many Christians are seriously confused on.

Our fundamental questions are simple: Does the Bible teach these things, and do these teachings, by their nature, lead to cruelty in those who believe them?

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jews Killed Jesus?

The Christian Bible does, in fact, teach that Jewish leadership was responsible for the execution of Jesus. But this, in itself, is not cruel. First, it’s not a religious dogma of Christianity, but a somewhat incidental historical footnote. Second, if Prager’s accusation sticks, then, oddly enough, Judaism ends up being cruel, too. Let me explain.

First, the identity of Jesus’ executioners is irrelevant to Christian dogma. What is critical to dogma is that Jesus truly died and was raised, not that any particular group was responsible for His death. Indeed, from the perspective of theology all men are responsible for the death of Christ because all sinned, and this the New Testament is very clear on. Further, Jesus made it clear that He gave His life willingly. No one takes His life from Him, He said, but He lays it down on His own initiative (John 10:18).

The question here is not doctrinal, but historical. The Gospel accounts merely report what happened, that Jews had Jesus executed for religious reasons. Historical facts are either true or false, not cruel or kind. If a particular thing actually happened, then it cannot be cruel to believe it.

Incidentally, the Bible is not the only historical record to implicate Jews in Christ’s passion. The Jewish scripture known as the Babylonian Talmud suggests the same thing. Sanhedrin 43a says, “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’”

The Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 107b states, “Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray.” According to these Jewish texts, Jesus was executed for religious crimes and offenses that mattered to Jews, not for political sedition against the Roman Empire.

Second, cruelty to Jews does not follow from the assertion that Jews were instrumental in the death of Jesus. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see this. Quite the contrary, the early Christians brought their message of forgiveness and reconciliation to the Jews first, with no animosity.

Further, the Christians of the first couple of centuries were excessively pacifistic and wouldn’t lift a finger to defend even themselves, much less take revenge on the Jews. Revenge was not only forbidden by the New Testament, it was unnecessary. According to Christian teaching, the execution of Christ was used by God to accomplish salvation for all who would believe. The death of Jesus was a great good to Christians, not an evil that needed avenging. It wasn’t until centuries after Christ that the institutional church used such illegitimate justification for malicious actions against non-Christians.

Is Judaism Cruel?

Third, this line of thinking also makes Judaism cruel. In the first century the Jewish belief that Jesus was not the Messiah was the animus for systematic persecution of Christians. Stephen was murdered by a mob of Jewish leaders for pointing out that the Jews habitually rejected God’s chosen deliverer—from Joseph, to Moses, down through the prophets, even to Messiah. In fact, most Christian martyrs from 33 to 64 A.D. died at the hands of Jews.

Here’s the dilemma. This argument holds that Christians murdered Jews because they believed Jews killed Christ. Therefore, the belief that Jews killed Christ is evil and Christianity is cruel for teaching it. But Jews murdered Christians because Jews believed Jesus was not the Messiah, as Christians claimed. Therefore, the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah is evil, and Judaism is cruel for teaching it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The fact is, evil people of all religious persuasions may seize upon religious justification for their immoral behavior, even when the behavior itself is condemned by the religion they purport to serve. When that happens, it’s simply mistaken to blame the religion. It may be that some of the greatest acts of cruelty came from professing Christians who used their religion as a cloak for evil. Christianity itself, though, doesn’t cause such evil. Rather, it consistently condemns it.

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jesus Is the Only Way to Heaven?

The second objection states that it’s cruel to teach that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

First, even if this depiction was entirely true, it escapes me how teaching this makes one cruel. Historically such thinking has stimulated great kindness: acts of charity, mercy, and love to make more tangible and palatable a message of God’s forgiveness that people desperately need. History is replete with wonderful examples of self-sacrifice and profound acts of love from Christians whose chief motivation was their belief that people perish eternally without Christ. It may be that Christians are mistaken here, but I fail to see how such a view makes them cruel.

Second, this is largely a straw man; the depiction is not true. Christianity does not teach that all “believers” in Christ, no matter what their behavior, have eternal salvation. In the Bible words are cheap and behavior is dear. Mere professions of faith are worthless. John says explicitly, “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar,” and “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God” (1 John 2:4, 3:10). Jesus Himself said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

But what about good people? Does Christianity hold that goodness is irrelevant to God? Here we must take our time and weigh our words carefully.

First, the Old Testament puts the issue of human goodness in perspective. Isaiah 64:6-7 says, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

The Psalmist adds, “They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. There is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside. Together they have become corrupt. There is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1-3).

These are strong words. The prophet affirms that our iniquity overwhelms our goodness. The Psalmist declares that our corruption consumes us. This is God’s perspective. We are all guilty, from the least to the great.

This is precisely the Christian testimony. The New Testament does not teach that good deeds are of no value. It teaches that good deeds cannot pay for bad deeds. This is a critical point of misunderstanding, even by Christians.

Why Good Can’t Pay for Bad

Our problem is not goodness, but badness. Yes, God demands that we live ethically. But what about those moments when we don’t? The most vital issue Christianity answers is “How can we be right with God when we are not thoroughly good?”

There is profound misunderstanding on this point, as I said, and part of the misunderstanding is because many err in defining goodness according to human standards, that is, good “more or less”—basically good. God, on this view, is concerned with what kind of individual one is “on average.” He’s not examining every corner of one’s life to find any dirt there. If the good outweighs the bad, if good is predominant, then God winks at the occasional moral lapse.

But justice never works like this, does it? The law demands that “on average” each person obey every law always, not most laws usually. You can be an upstanding citizen all your life, but one single crime is still going to bring you before the court.

Further—and this is absolutely critical—no amount of good behavior pays for bad behavior. Period. Law requires consistent goodness, and that which is already owed cannot be used to pay for new debts.

God, like all lawgivers, requires nothing less than moral perfection. “But that’s impossible,” you say. You’re right. That’s why we need a Savior.

For those inclined to disagree with this point, I have this question: If laws can be violated with no expectation of punishment (since the law does not demand perfection) then which laws or what percentage of the law can be disobeyed with impunity, with no consequence of justice?

The Christian claim is simply this: Every person stands guilty before God in some measure. Good deeds cannot atone for bad deeds because one already owes God obedient, righteous, moral behavior. Instead, we must seek forgiveness, and since God is the one offended, we must seek forgiveness from Him on His terms.

The New Testament teaching is that God’s terms involve Jesus, and a rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God’s forgiveness. One who rejects forgiveness is still in his sin; he’s still under judgment.

Here’s a simple way of putting it. One day every single one of us, the morally great and small alike, will stand before God to be judged for our own crimes, such as they are—some more, some less. Either we pay for them ourselves, or we let Jesus pay for them for us. That’s it. If we refuse forgiveness through Jesus, then we stand alone to endure God’s penalty.

That’s the New Testament teaching. There’s nothing bizarre, unfair, outlandish, or cruel about it. The only cruelty is knowing this information and withholding it.

I certainly agree that religion can make people cruel. But that’s only because either the religion itself is false and therefore does not reflect God’s morality, or because the religion is true, but its ethics are either misunderstood or misapplied. The latter happens frequently with Christianity. That’s not the fault of its founder, though, or its founding principles; it’s the fault of its followers.

[align=left]

---

[/align]

Stand to Reason - Equipping Ambassadors for Christ in knowledge, wisdom, and character.

Our Mission

Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.

Our Strategy

Stand to Reason has a strategy to change the world God gives us access to. Our plan has six parts, and we're working our plan very intentionally.

Radio
Self-directed Training Curricula
Public Speaking and Seminars
Publications
Cyberspace
Outposts

Stand to Reason's website includes over 300 free commentaries on issues like abortion, homosexuality, the reliability of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and more. Visit www.str.org to research your next school assignment, small group topic, or for personal enrichment and study.

Receive a free subscription to Stand to Reason’s bi-monthly newsletter, Solid Ground, and a free copy of Never Read a Bible Verse by clicking here. TheologyWeb highly recommends both products to stimulate your thinking about critical issues.

If anyone is in the Anaheim, California area, you may wish to check out the “With All Your Mind” Conference taking place at Talbot School of Theology on December 28-31, 2003 where Greg Koukl will be a speaker. For more information click here. Also, in Marietta, Georgia on November 20-22, 2003, Greg will be speaking at the “Set Forth Your Case” (a conference to equip Christians for discipleship and evangelism) for which further information can be obtained by clicking here.

Lastly Greg Koukl’s radio broadcasts are archived on the Web, so even if you do not have the benefit of hearing his broadcast locally, you can still benefit from his fabulous show which features relevant monologues, guests, and call-in question and answer sessions here. TheologyWeb thanks Greg profusely for his very kind mentions of TheologyWeb frequently on his broadcasts.

Remember Stand to Reason is a featured Sister Site of TheologyWeb, and if you enjoyed this article, each week you can find similar ones posted for discussion and edification here.


[align=left]

---

[/align]

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement

[Dee Dee Warren]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate for a. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[geebob]

The second objection states that it’s cruel to teach that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

I agree that this would be cruel. Even pagan mothers love and hope for the life of their newborns. This is from God, it is not sin, but reprobation in any form including reprobation that is due to not some mysterious purpose in God's will but rather ending up on the wrong side of temporal spacial boundary of the Gospel, is at odds with maternal love. It says that though God has given it to her to raise her child in the hope of life, He has only done so for this minute and insignificant fraction of eternity which will lead to eternal punishment.

There is a more serious paradox (and more readily explicit one, as the one above is not drawn out as well as it could be), regarding the two greatest commandments and reprobation.

There are two things to note about our love for God. One is that our love, when we are percieving everything right about God entails that we approve of everything about Him. There should be nothing that we find fault in him. Secondly, our love for God is dependent upon his love for us. As John tells us, we love because he first loved us.

Now the second greatest commandment tells us that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Now one thing to note about my love for myself is that I desire salvation. I desire to live happily forever. So If I love my neighbor as myself, then I will have that same desire for them. Loving my neighbor also entails that I would to a degree identify there wants and needs as my own.

thus comes the paradox. If I love my neibor as myself and yet God has not made sure that there was an accessible possibility for them to be saved, then God has thwarted one of my most basic desires, the desire to live and have joy. He thwarts this desire because now, loving them as myself, I have this desire for them. Furthermore, in loving them, I identify some of there most important hopes, desires, and fears as my own. And since my love for God is dependent upon his love for me, If I am identifying with them, then God's lack of significant love for them is a problem.

There is one more thing about how this section of the article is worded and the statement that I just critisized above. It is cruel to hold that all non-christians will be damned given that many have never heard the Gospel, but I agree that it is not cruel to claim that Jesus is the only way, For even though the unevangelized and the old testament saints have never heard of Jesus in their lifetime, It is not the case that this will prevent God from applying Jesus sacrifice to their lives.

regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind

nothing could be further from the biblical truth as evidenced by heroes of the faith such as Rahab, Cornelius, Melchezidek, and Namaan.

First, even if this depiction was entirely true, it escapes me how teaching this makes one cruel.

It doesn't make them cruel.... but I can't say the same of the picture of God that this view presents for the reasons I've given.

History is replete with wonderful examples of self-sacrifice and profound acts of love from Christians whose chief motivation was their belief that people perish eternally without Christ.

True, but don't forget that history is repleat with those who, though they held as well that people would perish eternally, did not also hold that all non-christians would be damned. After all, I believe Justin Martyr is that man from where we get the term "martyr"? If not he was still martyred, and he was one of the many great minds of the church who did not hold that all non-Christians would be damned.

First, the Old Testament puts the issue of human goodness in perspective. Isaiah 64:6-7 says, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

The Psalmist adds, “They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. There is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside. Together they have become corrupt. There is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1-3).

It is not necessarily the case that these aren't hyperbolic with exceptions. It is biblically false to hold for example that no one does good. The stories of the righteous abound.

And the good that is done is not as filthy rags. Isaiah makes this statement in the context of the prostitution of israel.

It's hard to imagin that the almsgiving and prayers from Cornelius that went up before the Lord as a "Memoral" were filthy rags.

But perhaps we could take the meanings of these texts as refference to depravity as does Calvin. And perhaps we can take the righteousness of Cornelius as evidence not of his own goodness but as evidence of the grace of God at work as Calvin does. So then what's to stop us from viewing righteous acts by those outside the temporal spacial boundaries as evidence of God's grace at work, like for example the Muslim who risked his life to inform the US troops the whereabouts of Jessica Lynch (ther is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life...)? (Calvin does not hold that anyone outside the boundary of evangelism could be saved, unlike his cohort Zwingli, and that is why it is so fun to use his thinking to connect the dots).

[Cherith]

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jews Killed Jesus? The Christian Bible does, in fact, teach that Jewish leadership was responsible for the execution of Jesus. ... it’s not a religious dogma of Christianity, but a somewhat incidental historical footnote.

It was not just the Jewish "leadership" but the laity as well. The leadership conducted the secret, illegal trial, but it was the people who cried out with one voice for Barabbas and called upon God to judge them and their offspring for their choice:

Mat 27:25: "Then answered ALL the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

People should be very careful when they cast their vote and make their choice and call upon God to hold them to and ratify their words. What choice do they then leave God? Remember the rash vow of Jephthah?

The whole point should be mute today. Modern Jews are not the physical offspring of the patriarchs, nor can they prove descendancy even from those around at the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Let modern Jews profess the true nature of their religion - i.e. that it has no legitimate ties to the ancient people, but is merely the descendant of ancient idolatry and has that and that alone in common with the unbelieving Jews of old. What Christian would "persecute" them on that account?

...the identity of Jesus’ executioners is irrelevant to Christian dogma. What is critical to dogma is that Jesus truly died and was raised, not that any particular group was responsible for His death. Indeed, from the perspective of theology all men are responsible for the death of Christ because all sinned, and this the New Testament is very clear on. Further, Jesus made it clear that He gave His life willingly. No one takes His life from Him, He said, but He lays it down on His own initiative (John 10:18).

It may not be relevant to Greg Koukl, but the Scriptures do not portray the murder of Christ, and judgment on His murderers as irrelevant. Surely this doesn't stand to reason? It is precisely for this reason that Christ weeps over Jerusalem - because He knows what is coming upon them and FOR WHAT REASON.

Sure, no man Jew or otherwise had the POWER to take Christ's life from Him (which is the import of what Jesus is trying to convey in John 10:18), but that is very different from being HELD ACCOUNTABLE or RESPONSIBLE for the taking of His life. He didn't commit suicide after all... He was WILLING to die, but He didn't WANT to die. As someone who was fully man, He didn't WANT His spirit separated from His body... In fact, He agonized over His upcoming trial, conviction and sentence. He WANTED, if there was any other possible way, for THAT CUP to pass from Him. The Scriptures say "Nevertheless, not My Will, but Thine be done..." (Luke 22:42).

The Lord did not initiate His death, but neither did He need "prompting or direction" from others to dismiss His spirit.

This in no way absolved the Jews of their blood guilt. Nor did it incriminate ALL Jews then alive or since. Some were not even in Palestine and some (the disciples for instance) were certainly not a party to the condemnation. However, as spokesmen for the group, the leaders and the majority did call down divine judgment upon their own people. The Romans carried out the sentence at the behest of the people in that province, but as a societal group the Romans had no axe to grind with Christ (yet...).

The book of Psalms and Acts as well as the apostles make it quite clear that God did indeed hold the Jews responsible for the death of His Son (Psa 2; Acts 2:23; 3:13-19; 4:25-28; etc.). And the irony of it all cannot be lost on anyone who but reads the Scriptures. Here was the chosen nation of God, chosen specifically to bear His Image, reflect His Attributes, be a light to the world and usher in His Redemption and they "with wicked hands" delivered up, denied, crucified and "killed The Prince of Life." Peter, a Jew, says to this he was a witness! These are not just idle words. He too is calling upon the Divine Judge to hear the facts of the case, the testimony of eye-witnesses and to render a verdict just as the Jews that day at the trial of Jesus.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His Own Will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the Author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

No first-century Jew will be able to look back at the Judgment and say that they were forced to lift up their voice and vote in unison with others against Christ, but neither will they be able to deny that they did.

"The question here is not doctrinal, but historical. The Gospel accounts merely report what happened, that Jews had Jesus executed for religious reasons."

If they had Him executed "for religious reasons" then it is more than simply historical. Their actions were borne out of their doctrine - i.e. that their "place and nation" were more important to them than "kill[ing] The Prince of Life." They knew who Jesus was and they were willing to take their chances. And their actions and doctrines became a lesson for Christians - true believers - NOT to emulate. That is more than a historical lesson, that is a doctrinal lesson as well.

Overall, the article was exceptionally good and Greg gave an awesome presentation of the Gospel (as he always does). This and this alone should be our response to such lying, idolatrous nonsense.

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. {12} Behold, I come quickly; and My Reward is with Me, to give every man according to his work. ...{14} Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to The Tree of Life, and may enter in through The Gates into The City. {15} For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." --Rev 22:11-15

[Vorkosigan]

Overall, the article was exceptionally good and Greg gave an awesome presentation of the Gospel (as he always does). This and this alone should be our response to such lying, idolatrous nonsense.

Overall, this article was a mediocre bit of squirming that did not find an exit from the underlying nihilism and cruelty of Christianity. When you get down to it, it is still the loaded gun of hell and the Deity saying: obey me or else. Really that simple, the rest is simply an apologetics for authoritarian power.

Vorkosigan

[Queen]

Just a simple remark:

Aren't all religions cruel when interpreted by fundamentalists who hate people that are different or have a different faith? It has nothing to do with the holy books or anything like that...it is how you read the words and use it in daily life....humans make it cruel.......humans make it good.....humans make it peaceful....humans make it warlike.....humans are not perfect after all.

Just my two cents....

Lots of love, sunshine and wisdom,
Queen

[EricLikesHugs]

My take on it is that the Jews weren't necessarily responsible for Jesus' death. They tried their hardest to kill him, but failed.

Here's my reasoning:
In the gospel account, Jesus is condemned by every relevant religious and political institution. The Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and the masses all consented to his crucifixion. They tried to flog him, beat him on the head driving in deeper a crown of thorn, and finally had him nailed to a tree.

None of this though accounts for Jesus death, but a physical reflection of the awesom and horrible suffering he endured.

In Gethsemane (Matthew 26:38) Jesus says, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death." His suffering started long before his trek to Calvary. Something to note: Jesus said earlier in Matthew that we should not be afraid of him who can only kill the body, but we should fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Hell. If Jesus soul was on the verge of dying, Jesus was legitimately going through Hell.

A verse in the gospel of John says "But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out."

This shows that Jesus was dead after a few hours on the cross. I've heard also that the blood and water signify that his heart had exploded.

I think that sin is what is responsible for the immediate and physical death of Jesus, and therefore makes us sinners responsible. The Jews, they tried, but who can kill God? Jesus brought himself into a world of sin. In a world he knew would reject and crucify Him.

[geebob]

it is still the loaded gun of hell and the Deity saying: obey me or else. Really that simple,

I don't see that it is that simple when the kurtness of your description glosses over the fact that God is not merely arbitrarily making us obey inexplicably weird laws (technically, the law is no longer over us) but came down to suffer for us and with us even inspite of the fact that God suffers because of us. God has gone through hell for us and he knows how we can avoid it, so why refuse him in arrogance when it's better to live in peace and love with him?

Aren't all religions cruel when interpreted by fundamentalists who hate people that are different or have a different faith? It has nothing to do with the holy books or anything like that...i

On the contrary, the most faithful interpretation of some of the "holy" books may involve callouse indifference or hatred. Then again maybe not. I don't see reasonableness in simply making such broad sweeping genrealizations without a real examination of the nitty gritty and details of the claims. And of course there is the issue about where our own biases come from in determining what constitutes hatred.

[Director]

Maybe this whole racial hatred bit is a peculiar type of thing to America. Here's what I dont get, lets say the Jews were responsible for Jesus death...what's supposed to follow from that? That we are now justified in persecuting or hating Jews? But that doesn't hold up too well and here's why. Anyone who claims offense at the killing of Jesus would also have to claim that Jesus meant somthing special to them. If Jesus was special to a person you would think that that person would have studied what Jesus taught which of course would reveal things like "Love your enemies" "forgive those who..." etc. How would they reconcile the teachings of Christ with sentiments of hatred, revenge and predjudice?
As a point of history anyone who now hates Jews because of this 2000 year old crime would also have to give approval to African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese and others who were persecuted and destroyed by white America for holding feelings of hatred towards whites.

We could debate for a long time over this but here's one thing I am SURE OF, none of the people responsible for Jesus death are alive today. Directing hatred and revenge at those who are 2000 years removed from the event is just another example of ignorance. Take Mels movie for what it is.

[Jeannot]

There are passages in the NT that, taken at their face value, have been used to justify antisemitism from at least the time of St John Chrysostom through Martin Luther to the present. Most of these are in John, but there is also one notorious one in Matt.

These passages have provoked not only prejudice and persecution, but also hatred and murder.

But I do agree with your theological point that it was the whole human race that is responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, and not any one group. But why is this point often lost sight of, even by Church Fathers?

As for the question of "being good, " doing "works," etc--did not Jesus say "Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect"?

[Cherith]

Eric(Who)LikesHugs said: My take on it is that the Jews weren't necessarily responsible for Jesus' death. They tried their hardest to kill him, but failed.

Why do people have such a hard time reading, understanding and accepting The Word and Indictment of God? Are ye more holy, more just, more forgiving than God?

Acts 3:13-17: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. {14} But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and [ye] desired a murderer to be granted unto you; {15} And [ye] killed The Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. ...{17} And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers."

Acts 2:22-23: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: {23} Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"

As Hank Hannagraaf likes to say "the pagans were simply fulfilling their job description." The irony in the crucifixion of the Messiah is that He came to redeem the people of God and was slain by them! (albeit with the help of the pagans, of course...)

It was Jerusalem that God destroyed in A.D. 70 not Rome or Athens or London. It was Jerusalem Jesus wept over knowing what would befall them for their rebellious rejection.

Are Christians cruel to accept and affirm the indictment of God upon an ancient group? Is God cruel? And are ye/we more righteous than God?

--C

P.S. As I've said in numerous other places, today's Jews are not the physical descendants of those of the first century (although in matters spiritual they are their theological offspring) and are not (and should not be) held accountable for the deeds of their "fathers".

In like manner, we, as Christians, should not be (and are not) guilty for acts perpetrated by any of our ancestors (physical or spiritual) in the Crusades.

However, modern Jews are repeating the ancient error of old in that "they profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Tit 1:16)

[they] "crucify again for themselves The Son of God, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb 6:6) by "oppos[ing] Him and blasphem[ing]" (Acts 18:5-6) by saying, in essence, that Christ's cross is not a holy sacrifice for sin, but the deserved execution of a guilty criminal; all the while condemning themselves as accomplices in murder. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot The Son of God, and hath counted The Blood of The Covenant...an unholy/common thing, and hath insulted The Spirit of Grace?" (Heb 10:29)

"We know Him Who said: 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' ... and 'The Lord will judge His people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of The Living God." (vv.30-21)

As for Jeannot's "antisemitic" heading, let me just say this: "Show me a Semite that I might oppose him!" (A Semite was someone who was descended from Noah's son, Shem, and was an ethnic distinction. Modern Jews are not the biological/ethnic descendants of any one son of Noah.

Anti-semitism was a term that was non-existent until 1879 when it was coined by one Wilhelm Marr a German agitator, who created it to explain the current anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe. It has been used successfully ever since by the adherents of Judaism (particularly Zionism) to promote their religious, idealogical and political goals. (Too bad Marr and the users of his new word didn't have a solid grasp of history or biology!)

[geebob]

These passages have provoked not only prejudice and persecution, but also hatred and murder.

talk about your prooftexting to ridiculous extremes.

But some of those harsh words were deserved considering That it was first the Jews who persecuted Christians. Of course it is a colossal embarrasment that that should be turned around.

more directly, many of the Jews were being chastized by Christian Jews (pretty much the only kind of Christians for a bit as well as most if not all of your scripture authors), for not recognizing their Lord and Savior, God and Israel in the flesh.

Eventually, a sifnificant bone of contention against the "Jews" is that they held that you had to become Jewish in order to become a Christian. But other Jews, those who wrote the New Testament held that faith in Jesus replaced the signifiers of membership in the people of God.

To turn this into racism is just pure foolishness and stupidity.

[EricLikesHugs]

due to misunderstanding, and a fault of my own. And I will not elaborate any more. I still contend that Jews should not be labeled Christ killers, because even if they were the immediate cause, like water is the immediate cause of anyone drowning, the blame lies within all of us.

On another note..
How can Christians be antisemitic?
We have a Jewish Bible written By Jewish People (At least most of it), A Jewish Messiah, and in the Epistle of Romans we're called Spiritual Israel, grafted into the lineage of Abraham.

[falco]

just thinking here.

If christians were so nihilistic and cruel.....why don't we look at the goods they have done based on their professed belief on the teachings. We cannot say that the teachings are cruel......ex love your neighbor...

We can look at the charity works and the money and time expended to help non-christians for starters..
Can we say that all this was done due to the cruel teachings...(when was feeding and clothing folks cruel)...or to teachings of forgiveness, love, care etc......

Or maybe God doesn't care who you are....even though you killed millions based on your own atheistic beliefs (Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.....) and one day you did one good thing. Should that person in a divine or human sense be responsible for any of his/her actions....
Maybe like some eastern religion, they'll just be born as a cockroach and try to achieve nirvana.. Interesting has anyone documented a cockroach or fruit doing good...to reach nirvana. Maybe they have there own standard of good...like just taste goood or don't bother humans.

Just some wandering thoughts..... I am biased here if anyone is wondering. :)

[Doug TenNapel]

It seems weird to me that the Jews would be blamed for Jesus' death at all, or even man for that matter. While this may be one of those and/also things, I don't see how Jesus could have done his thing for us without dying.

Jesus came into this world to be SACRIFICED by design. I think if nobody rose to the occasion to kill him, that God himself would have killed him as Jacob was willing to do with his own son. It's not about Judas, the Romans, the Jews or Barrabas etc... it's about what God did.