"Christian apologist Paul Manata claims that Jews of one generation should be punished for murders committed by other Jews, long before they themselves were born.
'And so we see that all the blood of the prophets, whom the Jews had constantly put to death, was going to come on them '
There are some wicked, wicked people in the world."
Steven, it's not I who says this, but the Bible:
Luke 11:50
50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
Furthermore, in regards to punishing people for crimes they didn't actually commit, we do that all the time. For example, here's the charge in one murder-for-hire case: "Prosecutors allege that Schwartz, 41, hired Bigger to kill Stidham after patients began gravitating toward the younger doctor's practice while Schwartz was in rehab. Bigger will be tried separately, though both men are charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder." SOURCE HERE
And, I've also defended this type of critique against attack in length and in detail HERE.
I would add:
ReplyDeletea. The text also records them crying out that His blood be on them and their children.
b. And God mercifully offers salvation to them in Acts, where the promise (of salvation) is made to them and their children. So the concept is actually implied to be reversible, if they will meet the conditions. In short, "You killed Jesus and called down condemnation on you and every generation after, but God will be merciful to you and to them by offering salvation to you first and then to them through faith in Christ."
c. And what we have is an OT concept at work, and it's not just a theological concept. It goes back to the Mosaic Law where one generation could affirm the covenant's blessings and curses for all subsequent generations. That's a cultural norm too, not just a theological principle.
So, where's the problem? Who is he to criticize the cultural norms of others?
Yes, good point about the Jews.
ReplyDeleteI guess those Jews are racist against Jews too.
No, they agreed with the sins of the fathers, which means they are complicit in them.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, one is responsible for his own sins.
On the other, if you agree with the sins of your fathers, then you are guilty of those sins too, because your heart shows you would have committed them too, which the Jewish leaders did when they bragged about the tombs of the prophets, according to the text.
To keep this from happening, one need only truly disown the sins of the past generations by repenting. That's what we see when the covenant is renewed under Josiah, for example. That's what it would mean for a Jew to become a Christian today too.
So, we have that generation being held responsible for the sins of their fathers, and we have subsequent generations held responsible for the sins of that one, because they agree to them, a perfectly just arrangement considering:
a. the cultural norms
b. the fact that they agreed with the sins of their fathers, making themselves complicit in them.
But all they, or any other person, must do is repent and enter the New covenant,which for the Jew amounts to persevering in the covenant in which s/he already stands so that rejecting it is apostasy; so it isn't as if they have not in the Scriptures been told what to do.
I was mocking the argument non-christians make. The jews asked to be punished for killing Jesus, and their children to be punished too. This takes away the force of the evil white devil Christian who blames the Jews for Jesus' death. The Jews asked to be blamed. So we take them at their word and we get called racist.
ReplyDeleteSteven, it's not I who says this, but the Bible:
ReplyDeleteLuke 11:50
50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
This seems like more evidence that the Bible is an evil book. The things that can be justified by this book are appalling. Suppose today that an army was committing genocide, killing women, infants and children. I think most of us would be appalled. Suppose the member of the Army said “Well their ancestors over 300 years ago committed crimes against God.” That justification shouldn’t persuade anyone, but when it comes to the Old Testament, Christians seem to take these criminals at their word. If I know anything about what is right and wrong, I know this is wrong. Keep in mind that infants cannot agree or disagree with anything their ancestors did, but they were not exempted from this “punishment”.
Furthermore, in regards to punishing people for crimes they didn't actually commit, we do that all the time. For example, here's the charge in one murder-for-hire case: "Prosecutors allege that Schwartz, 41, hired Bigger to kill Stidham after patients began gravitating toward the younger doctor's practice while Schwartz was in rehab. Bigger will be tried separately, though both men are charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder."
The legal maneuvering of the prosecutor may or may not be justified. (I don’t know the statutory requirements for first-degree murder in Arizona and am not a lawyer.) But he is being prosecuted for his actions, not his great-great grandfather’s actions. Obviously, instigating a chain of events (like hiring a hitman) that will likely result in the death of a legally innocent person should be a crime. I don’t see how this is an example supports the case that you can punish someone for someone else’s actions, particularly if they are not causally responsible for those actions.
"This seems like more evidence that the Bible is an evil book."
ReplyDeleteAnother great example of humanistic question begging (i.e. By whose standard?).
I constantly hear about how smart humanists are, and yet, I've never heard an argument from their side that did not commit the worst logical fallacies.
Are you are asserting that I can't know that military targeting of infants to acheive genocide is wrong? That seems very strange in light of your belief in Romans 1.
ReplyDeleteI am willing to acknowledge that there may be a being that gives me moral knowledge. However that knowledge give me the reason to thing the Biblical God is not that lawgiver.
Arizona Revised Statute (as it currently stands) 13-1105 states (in part):
ReplyDelete“A person commits first degree murder if:
1. Intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child….”
ARS 13-302 states: “A person may be guilty of an offense committed by such person's own conduct or by the conduct of another for which such person is criminally accountable as provided in this chapter, or both. In any prosecution, testimony of an accomplice need not be corroborated.”
ARS 13-303 states (in part) “A. A person is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if:
1. The person is made accountable for such conduct by the statute defining the offense; or
2. Acting with the culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense, such person causes another person, whether or not such other person is capable of forming the culpable mental state, to engage in such conduct;…”
If that was the status of the law at the time, it would seem that Schwartz could have been convicted and punished for a crime he did commit--First-Degree murder as defined by the Arizona Statutes. (The Jury found him guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder, but not First Degree Murder, as it turns out.)
(Note. I am not licensed in Arizona, so if you are truly interested as to all the ins and outs of Arizona's law, please contact an attorney that is licensed in Arizona)
Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Are you are asserting that I can't know that military targeting of infants to acheive genocide is wrong?"
*Western society* has declared it to be wrong in the last couple hundred years (and that's only because those nations beliefs were fundamentally Christian). Every society before that believed such an act was the status quo.
So, on the basis of your proceeding statement, "However that knowledge give me the reason to thing the Biblical God is not that lawgiver," the "reason" (again, begging the question against Original Sin as well as being personal, subjective, and emotive) of EVERY people and nation that existed, prior to, say, the rise of Christianity, would disagree with you on your UNIVERSAL (and there lies the another major fallacy) statement that ALL instances of absolute societal destruction are unjustified.
[BTW: MY "reason" says that, in the case of the Canaanites, it's right. This of course shows your argument to be personal, subjective, and emotive.]
You said, "That seems very strange in light of your belief in Romans 1."
Romans 1 also says that those who do wickedness deserve death. Christians don't met out death in the way that the Israelites did simply because the Davidic throne is in heaven making the Church a *spiritual* kingdom until Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.
The Canaanites were righteously destroyed for their sin, and there will come a day when this will happen on a worldwide scale, on the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord, and "the smoke of their torment shall rise up forever and ever" (Revelation). AMEN!
*Western society* has declared it to be wrong in the last couple hundred years (and that's only because those nations beliefs were fundamentally Christian). Every society before that believed such an act was the status quo.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I understand your point. Are you saying that it is OK for militaries to target infants because of what their ancestors did? If so, I think your moral intuition has been severely damaged by your acceptance of the Bible.
Or are you saying that we know that genocide is wrong because of the Bible? That seems to like it would be a hard case to make in light of several Old Testament passages.
What do you mean by such acts were status quo? It would be hard to imagine that if you were in a village, and some soldiers killed your infant son, you would say “Well our queen offended their king 4 generations ago, so I guess we had it coming.”
Maybe you mean that atrocities happened all the time. In every society I know, many actions occur that are status quo are immoral. But the acceptance in society doesn’t necessarily show the rightness or wrongness of the action. So what follows from the fact that other societies behaved poorly. How would that undermine my moral knowledge?
I think I can know that is wrong by reflecting on other moral truth I know. I think I know this in a similar way to how I know 2+2 = 4. I may not be able to prove it. But you have not given me any reason to doubt my knowledge. Of course, Romans is not the basis of my belief, but why shouldn’t I think that God would make plain to me facts about his nature? Your denial of this claim puts you in conflict with Romans 1.
MY "reason" says that, in the case of the Canaanites, it's right. This of course shows your argument to be personal, subjective, and emotive.]
I don’t know how you think you can demonstrate that infanticide is “right.” You seem to want me to deny what I know. I don’t see any reason to deny this knowledge. If you are right about this, then Muslims would not be able to examine their scripture and determine that it violates their conscience either. It seems like a wonderful recipe for getting people to accept atrocities.
That gets me to your comments on begging the question. I think that militaries targeting infants is wrong. I would hope that belief would be common ground. If you agree, then we can build inferences from there.
But you want me to reject that belief. But the reason you have offered seems to be, “The Bible says …” You have given me no reason to think that this moral intuition is wrong other than by appealing to the Bible. That seems to be question begging to me. Why should I believe that the Christian God is the one true God?
BILL CURRY SAID:
ReplyDelete"This seems like more evidence that the Bible is an evil book."
What's your source and standard of good and evil, Bill?
"The things that can be justified by this book are appalling. Suppose today that an army was committing genocide, killing women, infants and children. I think most of us would be appalled."
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
"If I know anything about what is right and wrong, I know this is wrong."
Why should we assume that you know anything about right and wrong?
"I don’t think I understand your point. Are you saying that it is OK for militaries to target infants because of what their ancestors did? If so, I think your moral intuition has been severely damaged by your acceptance of the Bible."
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
"In every society I know, many actions occur that are status quo are immoral. But the acceptance in society doesn’t necessarily show the rightness or wrongness of the action. So what follows from the fact that other societies behaved poorly."
Based on what standard, Bill?
"How would that undermine my moral knowledge?"
You have yet to demonstrate that you have any moral knowledge to undermine.
"I think I can know that is wrong by reflecting on other moral truth I know."
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
"I may not be able to prove it."
So you admit that you can't begin to present a rational defense of your position.
"But you have not given me any reason to doubt my knowledge."
Since you have given us no reason for what you believe, we don't need to give you any reason to the contrary.
And you *say* it's "knowledge." You haven't *shown* it's "knowledge."
"Of course, Romans is not the basis of my belief, but why shouldn’t I think that God would make plain to me facts about his nature? Your denial of this claim puts you in conflict with Romans 1."
Apparently, it's been a long time since you read Rom 1. Try again. It talks about the suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.
"You seem to want me to deny what I know."
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
"I don’t see any reason to deny this knowledge."
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
"I think that militaries targeting infants is wrong. I would hope that belief would be common ground. If you agree, then we can build inferences from there."
Even if we were in agreement on the immorality of the action, that doesn't mean we agree on what makes it immoral. That doesn't mean your belief is warranted, Bill. Your worldview may undercut moral norms. Where's your argument for moral norms, Bill?
"You have given me no reason to think that this moral intuition is wrong."
Since you've given no reason for your moral intuition, there's nothing to rebut.
"Why should I believe that the Christian God is the one true God?"
There's a mountain of apologetic literature in answer to that question.
You have to admire Paul Manata's ability to shoot himself in the foot.
ReplyDeleteChristians on this thread have proved that they have no morals, only orders which must be obeyed at all times.
In fact Christians are *proud* of the fact that their moral sense is imposed upon them by something else, and that they do not have to think for themselves about what is moral and what is not.
ReplyDeleteThis lets them claim it is moral to say that Jews of one generation should share part of the blame for a murder committed 2,000 years before they were even born.
'On the other, if you agree with the sins of your fathers, then you are guilty of those sins too, because your heart shows you would have committed them too, which the Jewish leaders did when they bragged about the tombs of the prophets, according to the text.'
ReplyDeleteHow does building a tomb for a murdered prophet show you approved of his murder?
In cloud-cuckoo land?
I guess Texans are really proud of the murders at the Alamo, because they have preserved the building....
Steve, I see you like the regress game.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your source and standard of good and evil, Bill?
Suppose I don't know what the ultimate source is but I think it is some sort of God. Does it follow that I don't know the moral facts? Why would you think that?
Why should we assume that you know anything about right and wrong?
Why should you assume I don't? However you supposedly believe Romans 1, so maybe that is reason for you to believe I have moral knowlege.
So you admit that you can't begin to present a rational defense of your position.
Why should I think every piece of knowledge must be rationally defended? How would you know that? Whatever the answer to that question is, how would you know that? Etc.
That's not an argument, Bill. Where's your argument?
My original point was that appealing to the Bible in defense of moral actions is ineffectual when dealing with skeptics and that Paul's original example didn't demonstrate what he implied it did.
One argument I like that relates to this point is:
1) If Jesus endorced writings a source of moral authority would repudiate, that source would not have raise him from the dead.
2) Jesus endorsed the Law and Prophets as God's word.
3) The Law and prophets contain passage a source of moral authority would repudiate.
Therefore Jesus was not raised
And you *say* it's "knowledge." You haven't *shown* it's "knowledge."
Why do I have to show it is knowledge? How would you know that it has to be demonstrated? If you don't understand the moral claim, I would think you are morally impaired. Similar to someone who does not accept 2+2 = 4 is arithmetically impaired.
Even if we were in agreement on the immorality of the action, that doesn't mean we agree on what makes it immoral. That doesn't mean your belief is warranted, Bill. Your worldview may undercut moral norms. Where's your argument for moral norms, Bill?
Why would we need to agree on what makes it immoral? Suppose we agree that 2+2 = 4, but disagree about the ultimate source of the truth 2+2 = 4 (for example Platonistism vs Intuitionism, etc) . How would that that undermine the knowledge of 2+2 = 4?
Of course, I think that your worldview elevates hearsay above the moral knowlegde "written on our heart" directly by our creator. As such I think you worldview undercuts moral norms by putting it on a false foundation. It makes it easier to justify genocide.
Of course the question is "which way does the evidence point?" But the knowledge written on my heart should be considered, I have seen no reason to doubt it here.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have any moral knowledge to undermine.
Don't you think claim "military targeting of infants for the crimes of long dead ancestors is wrong" is knowledge?
But by all mean, continue to argue that genocide is justified if the actors claim that their actions are justified by God.
There's a mountain of apologetic literature in answer to that question.
That doesn't mean the arguments presented are any good.
steve said:
ReplyDeleteBILL CURRY SAID:
“Steve, I see you like the regress game.”
Bill, I see you like to be an intellectual freeloader.
“Suppose I don't know what the ultimate source is but I think it is some sort of God.”
i) “Suppose” is not an argument. Where’s your argument, Bill?
ii) “Some sort of God” is just a linguistic placeholder.
iii) And different “sorts of gods” can underwrite different codes of conduct, like Moloch, Zeus, Ishtar, Ares, and Tlaloc.
So posting some generic divinity doesn’t select for any particular code of conduct.
“Does it follow that I don't know the moral facts? Why would you think that?”
Gee whiz. Maybe because you’ve given us no reason to think you know the “moral facts.”
“Why should you assume I don't?”
Because you’ve given me no reason to think otherwise.
Actually, that’s an understatement. You’ve given me reason to think your moral intuition is wide the mark.
“However you supposedly believe Romans 1, so maybe that is reason for you to believe I have moral knowlege.”
I already addressed your bogus appeal to Rom 1. You have a very limited attention span.
“Why should I think every piece of knowledge must be rationally defended?”
That begs the question of whether your opinion counts as knowledge.
“My original point was that appealing to the Bible in defense of moral actions is ineffectual when dealing with skeptics.”
And appealing to your subjective, idiosyncratic feelings is ineffectual when dealing with Christians.
Continuing:
***QUOTE***
1) If Jesus endorced writings a source of moral authority would repudiate, that source would not have raise him from the dead._2) Jesus endorsed the Law and Prophets as God's word._3) The Law and prophets contain passage a source of moral authority would repudiate._Therefore Jesus was not raised
***END-QUOTE***
Even if that argument were valid, it isn’t sound since you’ve done nothing to verify the operating premise—your “moral authority.”
“Why do I have to show it is knowledge? How would you know that it has to be demonstrated?”
Because you want your tendentious opinion to have the cash value of an argument.
“If you don't understand the moral claim, I would think you are morally impaired.”
Is this where I’m supposed to cry?
“Similar to someone who does not accept 2+2 = 4 is arithmetically impaired.”
A lovely argument from analogy minus the argument. Have you always been this intellectually impaired, or only since you became an apostate?
“Why would we need to agree on what makes it immoral?”
Because your belief may be groundless, in which case the common ground is specious.
“Suppose we agree that 2+2 = 4, but disagree about the ultimate source of the truth 2+2 = 4 (for example Platonistism vs Intuitionism, etc) . How would that that undermine the knowledge of 2+2 = 4?”
No, suppose you actually make an argument for your opinion instead of resorting to a decoy.
“It makes it easier to justify genocide.”
Once again, you’re using adjectives to do the work of arguments.
“But the knowledge written on my heart should be considered, I have seen no reason to doubt it here.”
And a Samurai could appeal to the knowledge written on his heart to justify “genocide.”
“Don't you think claim ‘military targeting of infants for the crimes of long dead ancestors is wrong’ is knowledge?”
Of course, this oversimplifies the rationale for holy war in the OT. Jason, Gene, and I have gone over this ground in detail.
But you default to your simplistic formulations instead of engaging the counterarguments.
“That doesn't mean the arguments presented are any good.”
And this doesn’t mean that you’ve presented any good counterarguments.