Antisemitism in Christianity

[JohntheBike]

What about atheists, why should we use a calendar based on a bearded mass murdering god's bastard son?

they are entirely at liberty to use whatever calendar they wish, but clearly would find it difficult in the modern World.

[Zigenare]

Neither the Jews nor the Muslims accept what he claimed to be, and the Muslims do not accept that he died on the cross. So this is what I mean when I say they don't believe in Jesus. So I'm not wrong as you claim.

However, there are Messianic Jews, who do believe in Jesus. The Jewish vision of the Messiah is someone like Joshua, an individual who would release them from oppression. So if you consider that it was a Christian nation, i.e. the UK, which effectively paved the way for the modern state of Israel, then Christ was certainly the Messiah for the Jews, irrespective of any religious considerations.

Bring me the head of JohnTheBike!

[JohntheBike]

No

That's what I've been saying Mary shagged some random guy, got pregnant told Joseph it was God who did it. The fool believed her and kicked off a religion of world wide oppression and mass murder.

It's surprising how Christianity is mature and confident enough to withstand such statements, whilst other religions can't.

[JohntheBike]

Bring me the head of JohnTheBike!

which is why the Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays.

[Zigenare]

It's surprising how Christianity is mature and confident enough to withstand such statements, whilst other religions can't.

It's the "Turn the other cheek" bollocks that lets us down.

Let's change it to "Smite the bastard before the bastard smites thee!"...

[JohntheBike]

It's the "Turn the other cheek" bollocks that lets us down.

Let's change it to "Smite the bastard before the bastard smites thee!"...

or "an eye for an eye" even!

[MasterBait]

It's surprising how Christianity is mature and confident enough to withstand such statements, whilst other religions can't.

Rape by a god is more acceptable?

[rik sherman]

Turn the other cheek

It's the "Turn the other cheek" bollocks that lets us down.

Let's change it to "Smite the bastard before the bastard smites thee!"...

Turn the other cheek has been so misused. At the time of Jesus back-hand striking of a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.

So was really a form of resistance to someone who could not respond in self defence it was not a call to non-violence by all. The passivism argument is a 'modern' interpretation not taking into account the context of the times.

[WordIsBond]

So if you consider that it was a Christian nation

Christ didn't believe in Christian nations, FWIW. Said his kingdom was not of this world.

The concept of Christian nations was invented by politicians within the Church (popes, bishops, cardinals, etc) to gain power, and politicians / monarchs / nobles outside the church to convince religious people to help them gain or hold power. It's just a political construct that actually has very little to do with any real religious belief.

[WTFH]

...So I'm not wrong as you claim.

...However, there are Messianic Jews, who do believe in Jesus.

In other words you are wrong, and you accept that with your own words.

So if you consider that it was a Christian nation, i.e. the UK...

The UK is NOT a Christian nation.
Many of the people in the UK who label themselves as "Christian" most certainly do not act in a Christ-like way