How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…

Bradford: "it is correct to say that some Christians persecuted Jews because of their purported role in the Crucifixion."

The "some" was implicit, but it doesn't hurt to make it explicit. Anti-Semitism (and its supposed Scriptural and religious justification) was prevalent in Christendom for many centuries leading up to the holocaust.

Zachriel: Any reasonable definition of Christian must include Martin Luther. And if your definition of Christian does include Luther, then it is correct to say that Christians persecuted Jews because of their purported role in the Crucifixion.

Matthew 27:25, Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Christian, one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This is evidence of a very dark side to Luther. To be accurate though I would state that "it is correct to say that some Christians persecuted Jews because of their purported role in the Crucifixion." The truth is the NT accounts are dominated by Jewish personalities from start to finish. When you have any documentation of events in which the people are predominantly of the same group you also have the expectation that the good and bad depicted will also be dominated by the same group of people. In the case of the crucifixion Gentiles played a major role. They were involved in the process itself and scripture makes it clear that it was the sins of humanity crucifixion atoned for. Sinners made the cross necessary; a category that includes all- Jews and Gentiles alike.

Zachriel: I think you mean "True Christian". For centuries, Christians blamed the Jews for the Crucifixion, all the while citing Scripture.

fifth monarchy man: I noticed your Luther quote contained no scripture this is telling when you consider that the rest of his writings drip with it.

Telling.

The quote refers to "this innocent blood of our Lord", a clear reference to the Crucifixion. Luther's 1543 manifesto, On the Jews and Their Lies, is chock-full of Scriptural references. His manifesto inextricably ties his fervent love of Christ with his anti-Semitism.

fifth monarchy man: When Luther wrote those things he was not behaving as a Christian.

That wasn't the question, of course.

Bradford: Why call someone a Christian who believes in values that are polar opposites to those advocated by Christ?

Any reasonable definition of Christian must include Martin Luther. And if your definition of Christian does include Luther, then it is correct to say that Christians persecuted Jews because of their purported role in the Crucifixion.

Matthew 27:25, Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Christian, one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So what is an acceptable percentage of one's time to not behave as a Christian, and still deserve to be called a Christian? 5%? 10%? 20%?

0% if we have the authority to judge. You know "let him who is with out sin cast the first stone" and all that.
The size of splinter we are allowed to complain about in our neighbor's eye is proportional to the size of the plank in our own.
Weren't you paying attention in Sunday school?
Peace

Thus neither Darwin's extrapolation of that to natural selection nor his cousin's corruption of that to human elitism was anything new or revolutionary. All old news, only the 'intellectual elite' that were too good to farm or handle livestock were floored by the spectacular Darwinian revelations of what everybody who was anybody already knew.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore by Joy's rants, but this is just too ridiculous. Is this an April 1 joke? Now we're told that the man in the street knew all along that natural selection can cause the origin of species. It was just the ignorant pampered intellectuals who thought it was a brilliant new idea.

Darwin was a nobody. Hatred, pure and simple.

Me
Darwin was being consistent when he endeavored to remove a weaker race.
You

That was an unchristian and unsupported thing for you to say. (Hitler maybe, but Darwin himself?)

If it was anyone else I would just say oops but since it was you I will say…

How do you know that Darwin was not Hitler if a square can be a circle anything is possible?

keep thinking about how metaphysically a square can be a circle (in universes with geometries different than ours).

Keep thinking about how a square circle would be described using language and you will see why I think you have turned your back on communication.

Peace

http://www.livingstonemusic.ne...

When Luther wrote those things he was not behaving as a Christian. In fact just the opposite. Why is this so hard to understand.

Oh I see. Luther was a Christian, but he was just not behaving as a Christian part of the time. Just instigating a little murder and mayhem part of the time. So what is an acceptable percentage of one's time to not behave as a Christian, and still deserve to be called a Christian? 5%? 10%? 20%?

You wrote…

Darwin was being consistent when he endeavored to remove a weaker race.

That was an unchristian and unsupported thing for you to say. (Hitler maybe, but Darwin himself?)

Take a deep breath, you are usually more careful in you posts.

BTW, keep thinking about how metaphysically a square can be a circle (in universes with geometries different than ours) and you might begin to understand why I believe no one can know the Truth.