A Lurking Shadow
I'm a slave to your will
Mike Godwin would be very proud of this thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is logic over-rated?
- Thread starter Phasmid
- Start date
Captain Civic
version 2.0
Sure, no problem. But Christ didn't say "Kill Jews", did He?
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Christ never said anything because he never existed. Some christian followers are the ones that blame the Jews for the death of the supposed Christ.
ravenstrike
Court Jester
Yeah, i'm not 100%, but I don't think the Roman Catholic church has as of yet recanted their doctrine on the Jews being Christ-Killers
Captain Civic
version 2.0
:bonk:
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The Accusation of Deicide
The Catholic Church's new approach to teaching about the Jews started with Pope John XXIII, who initiated the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). During this Council, the declaration Nostra Aetate was approved in 1965 under Pope Paul VI. The main issue was the deicide, about which the document stated: "True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today." Moreover, the Church "deplores the hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source."[SIZE=-2]7[/SIZE]
This marks the only theological revolution that has ever occurred in the Catholic Church since its very beginning, when the deicide accusation was first formulated. However, it does not fully acquit the Jews; it only limits the charge to those Jews who "pressed for the death of Christ."
To explain and implement Nostra Aetate in subsequent years, two related documents were promulgated by the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: the Guidelines of 1 December 1974 and the Notes of 24 June 1985.[SIZE=-2]8[/SIZE] The Guidelines "condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-Semitism and discrimination, which in any case the dignity of the human person alone would suffice to condemn." The Notes affirm for the first time: "The existence of the State of Israel and its political options, should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law." This would enable some years later the recognition of the state of Israel by the Holy See.
For his part, Pope John Paul II seemingly went back to the Church's traditional attitude in his encyclical of 18 May 1986, "Dominum et Vivificantem."[SIZE=-2]9[/SIZE] In it he wrote:
It should be noted that in 1998, the Pope seemed to express a contrary attitude when he said about Jesus' condemnation to death:
Crucify him! The cry is redoubled by the blind passion of the crowd/ Strange liturgy of death/ it echoes throughout history.…
So many children denied, prostituted, mutilated. Oh no, not the Jewish people, crucified by us for so long, not the crowd which will always prefer Barabbas because he repays evil with evil, not them, but all of us, each one of us, because we are all murderers of love.[SIZE=-2]13[/SIZE]
-------------------------------------
Pope John Paul II and the Jews: An Evaluation - Sergio I. Minerbi
The Catholic Church's new approach to teaching about the Jews started with Pope John XXIII, who initiated the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). During this Council, the declaration Nostra Aetate was approved in 1965 under Pope Paul VI. The main issue was the deicide, about which the document stated: "True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today." Moreover, the Church "deplores the hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source."[SIZE=-2]7[/SIZE]
This marks the only theological revolution that has ever occurred in the Catholic Church since its very beginning, when the deicide accusation was first formulated. However, it does not fully acquit the Jews; it only limits the charge to those Jews who "pressed for the death of Christ."
To explain and implement Nostra Aetate in subsequent years, two related documents were promulgated by the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: the Guidelines of 1 December 1974 and the Notes of 24 June 1985.[SIZE=-2]8[/SIZE] The Guidelines "condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-Semitism and discrimination, which in any case the dignity of the human person alone would suffice to condemn." The Notes affirm for the first time: "The existence of the State of Israel and its political options, should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law." This would enable some years later the recognition of the state of Israel by the Holy See.
For his part, Pope John Paul II seemingly went back to the Church's traditional attitude in his encyclical of 18 May 1986, "Dominum et Vivificantem."[SIZE=-2]9[/SIZE] In it he wrote:
When, therefore, during the Pentecost event, Peter speaks of the sin of those who "have not believed" and have sent Jesus of Nazareth to an ignominious death, he bears witness to victory over sin: a victory achieved, in a certain sense, through the greatest sin that man could commit: the killing of Jesus, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father! Similarly, the death of the Son of God conquers human death: "I will be your death, O death," as the sin of having crucified the Son of God "conquers" human sin! That sin which was committed in Jerusalem on Good Friday - and also every human sin.[SIZE=-2]10[/SIZE]
In this encyclical, John Paul II also quotes Peter in the New Testament: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."[SIZE=-2]11[/SIZE] It appears that John Paul II sought to return to the traditional accusation of murder against the Jews, asserting: "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this 'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance,' in other words to the radical refusal to be converted."[SIZE=-2]12[/SIZE] Does this mean that the sin of being a Jew "cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next"?
It should be noted that in 1998, the Pope seemed to express a contrary attitude when he said about Jesus' condemnation to death:
Crucify him! The cry is redoubled by the blind passion of the crowd/ Strange liturgy of death/ it echoes throughout history.…
So many children denied, prostituted, mutilated. Oh no, not the Jewish people, crucified by us for so long, not the crowd which will always prefer Barabbas because he repays evil with evil, not them, but all of us, each one of us, because we are all murderers of love.[SIZE=-2]13[/SIZE]
-------------------------------------
Pope John Paul II and the Jews: An Evaluation - Sergio I. Minerbi
A Lurking Shadow
I'm a slave to your will
Mike Godwin put forward that every internet argument eventually becomes a discussion about the Nazi's, and or Hitler, regardless of how it starts. Its known as Godwin's Law.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Logic is not overrated. It is underrated. Logic is always logical, otherwise, it wouldn't be logic. Any logic deemed unreliable wouldn't be logical and therefore would be illogical. That's where logic can get a bad name; not everyone knows how to be logical. Logic is always logical.
By the way, "gut feelings" can be logical. They're not always in competition with brute force intellectual logic. Evolution has gifted us with the ability to absorb information sub-consciously. When something doesn't "feel" right, it's our sub-conscious telling our conscious minds that we actually know more than we think we know. Therefore, gut feelings can be logical.
By the way, "gut feelings" can be logical. They're not always in competition with brute force intellectual logic. Evolution has gifted us with the ability to absorb information sub-consciously. When something doesn't "feel" right, it's our sub-conscious telling our conscious minds that we actually know more than we think we know. Therefore, gut feelings can be logical.
science_is_my_god
Philosophical Monist
I am an atheist. But I don't put ALL my faith in logic. My "gut" says religion is wierd. My "gut" says to think about the concept of "god" critically. Thats why I became an atheist. But I DO think what TurkeyOnRye says about logic being underrated is correct. Any statement made logically is not only ALWAYS correct, but can ALWAYS be proven correct. Always. 2+2 ALWAYS equals four. Period. Would you find logic "overrated" if you were to place a bet gambling? Would you bet a million dollars
you'd roll a six five times in a row on a game of dice? No. Because logic says otherwise. So why should religion be looked at in a different way? And if a god created us and our logic, why would he make his existence illogical?
you'd roll a six five times in a row on a game of dice? No. Because logic says otherwise. So why should religion be looked at in a different way? And if a god created us and our logic, why would he make his existence illogical?
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Captain Civic
version 2.0
If you're going to debate what Christ did or did not say, don't end the argument saying that he didn't even exist. It's just frustrating.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
How can you debate something that had no eyewitnesses? All the gospels were hearsay at best. Many of the supposed "quotes" of Jesus were "recorded" in a place where nobody but him was present. Who was writing all this stuff down?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
How can one ignore the eye witnesses that are mentioned in the Gospels. The historical existence of many of them is not in question.
Regards,
Scott
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
An intelligent answer? Or a 'nonny-nonny-boo-boo'? I suspect the latter because that's the summation of most of your arguments.
Regards,
Scott
Captain Civic
version 2.0
Then perhaps you shouldn't make definitive statements about sayings of a person you don't even believed existed.
logician
Well-Known Member
You shouldn't make definitive statements about a person you don't even know existed, were you there during his every utterance?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
SaveMeJebus
Member
first of all your talking about tv shows, being logical in real life is logical!!