Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Why did God let people crucify Jesus?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3576-3600 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 08:44:02 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Shakepen- interesting how the authority of the pope comes and goes depending on the argument!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 17:17:26 BDT
Shakepen says:
CA: There is no doubt that the Pope is responsible for what goes on in the Catholic Church. I don't know how the Pope can escape responsibility for what happens. But, he's also responsible for any good that also occurs as a result of Church policies.

One thing that has always bothered me about the Pope is that a group of Cardinals select one of their members to be the Pope. This man then can speak with the infalliability of God. Wouldn't one think that God would select the Pope, not men? To those who think the Cardinals are divinely inspired, word that comes out from their deliberations is exactly as one would expect: wheeling and dealing as one would expect in any political wrangling.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 17:37:25 BDT
C. A. Small says:
The problem is that catholics state he is not infallible on matters about which he is clearly wrong. Then claim some authority on other matters they agree with.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 22:07:16 BDT
Hi T Woodman, your words are like a breath of fresh air! Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 22:21:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2012 22:54:46 BDT
DB says:
If an employee in your company gets upset at work and goes home and murders his wife, are you responsible for his actions?
Are our law makers responsible for his actions because he did not follow the laws of the land?
Where does authority change to individual responsibility?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 22:59:42 BDT
Shakepen says:
CA: This is an interesting post: "...he (the Pope) is not infalliable on matters about which he is clearly wrong." Obviously, if a certain decision is defined as wrong, there is no infalliability, but who decides the Pope is wrong? And if the Pope is wrong, who has the power to change his decision?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 07:52:59 BDT
C. A. Small says:
DB- I suspect you are trying to find some convoluted way to give your odious deity a get out of jail free card for his genocide, and the catholic church one for all the crimes they have and continue to commit/hide.

No chance- you will only twist what I post as you always do to fit your religion damaged brain and it's preconceptions.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 10:38:31 BDT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 17:36:00 BDT
Shakepen says:
DB: I've been thinking about your statement: "If an employee in your company gets upset at work and goes home and murders his wife, are you responsible for his actions?" At first, I thought your analogy was pretty clever and absolved the Pope of certain crimes and misdemeanors committed under him.

However, after thinking about this analogy for a couple of days, I think it is flawed. First, a company is not a moral organization: it is profit generating organization. Second, company workers do not take vows and make moral commitments to the organization and God. Third, while ethics are important in a company, the company's reason d'etre is not completely committed to morality and the propagation of the morality around the world. There are, of course, other differences, but these will highlight the problems with your analogy. Therefore, I feel my statements regarding the moral responsibility of the Pope are correct.

Posted on 10 Jul 2012 18:38:35 BDT
DB can't be arsed to answer a tough question. Again.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 19:46:04 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jul 2012 19:55:22 BDT
T Woodman,

i do get a bit confused when people start talking about something being 'not literally true' as it leaves me wondering in what sense it remains true. either there were no humans on this planet and then god created Adam and then Eve and our species are directly related back to these two individuals or not. that is either a truth or it isn't. my dad believed it was true and there seems to still be people around that also believe this to be literally true. i am satisfied that science has shown that the Adam and Eve account for the origin of our species is simply not true. science does seem to have traced our ancestry back to a single female but this has nothing to do with her being the first female nor that she was impregnated by the first male to have existed.

what i think we are left with is a creation myth that sets out to explain the origin of our species and the Israelites relationship with god from what they understood of their history. as such it is a creation myth created by people for whom it represented the best understanding they could arrive at. i very much believe that the originators of the account did not believe they were creating an account of the literal truth but were rather offering an explanation for the beginning of everything and for how they got to where they were 1st millennium BCE. so in my opinion the account is neither historically nor theologically true so a myth in the full sense of the word, a created account with no truth. i also think that the writers of the Genesis account as well as the writers of the source material that they drew from were likely to be aware of the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths and theology and have been aware that they were in some sense competing with those accounts by producing their own.

The flood myth on the other hand is something different. i believe the biblical account is offering a understanding of a historical event, not global but certainly extensive flooding, from a religious perspective. having decided that god is responsible for whatever happens god must have been responsible for the flood so an explanation is thought of for why god would do this. in this case the account is a myth regarding god creating the flood but a historical recollection of a flood event, or maybe the merging of several flood recollections. in this case the flood might be said to be a deeper general truth but it's not so in the religious sense.

the question i would pose is in what sense any myth account can represent a deeper religious truth? i quite like the idea that the Cain and Able myth represents the clash of nomadic and farming cultures amongst the early Israelite settlement into Canaan which must have happened in some form or the other as they became more settled in the area but does a religious take on it represent a deeper religious truth or does it just try to place the situation in a religious context that they could relate to given their existing understanding of their god and their developing theology!

i remain suspicious of taking something and saying 'well it's not literally true but it is still true on a deeper religious level'. i do think it can represent a truth but more historical than religious although it might give an insight into religious thought at the time of it's creation. maybe a deeper understanding of the religion and it's people rather than of god!

if the Biblical Adam and Eve is not true then in what sense can the 'fall from grace' account to explain man's initial relationship with god be said to be true? we have our species developing over millions of years and spreading out over the globe. where does god come into this to create us and have this situation where we fall from grace? if Adam and Eve are not literally true then is our fall from grace literally true? if not then where does that leave our understanding of our relationship with the Abrahamic god? if we accept ID we still have the fall from grace and original sin problem as well as a whole lot of other problems with the old testament.

so you think something can be not literally true but still true on another level that is religiously significant in terms of understanding god? interesting, can you give me an instance?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 19:51:50 BDT
yes indeed it might be. but during the formative years of Christianity it was hotly debated and what we consider mainstream Christianity represents the winners of that debate/struggle for 'knowing' the truth of Jesus. personally i think it makes much more sense if Jesus was divine.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 22:27:22 BDT
DB says:
Ok Shakepen, I accept your argument, but what if for arguments sake, a policeman goes home and murders his wife. Is the Chief constable, or the judiciary, or the government who made the law, and who expected him to follow the law he signed up to uphold, then responsible for his breaking the law?
Also could you give your opinion on another question -
When does the responsibility of authority change to individual responsibility?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2012 22:57:38 BDT
I'm not sure the analogy holds. But to answer the question.

The individual is responsible for his actions.
The authority is responsible for their actions.
So it depends on the case where the level of responsibility lies.
The pope has cntrol over the direction and teachings of the catholic church and bears responsibility for the results of decisions on those. If those decisions significantly contribute to actions that lead to harm, he bears responsibility for them.

With the office worker, or police officer, you've offered nothing in the example to suggest the action was in any way caused by the actions of the company/police force, so they probably aren't responsible.

With the catholic church, actions of the church have led to a greater propensity for certain actions, have induced other actions etc. So the pope bears some responsibility for the harm caused. His inaction in some cases makes him culpable for some harm as well, because he had responsibility to make some decisions.

I'm not talking about any specific case here, but I hope I made the distinction clear, I'm a little sleepy so may edit this tomorrow morning.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2012 00:16:17 BDT
Shakepen says:
DB: You've asked a good question. Ordinarily, a business is responsible for the torts of its employees, but not criminal responsibility unless there has been connivance of the owners or CEO (person of responsibility). But these organizations are set up by stock holders or elected officials. The organizations hire the rank and file, but the stockholders and police departments do not hire the person at the top of the organization. The Board of Directors or elected city officials or elected officials generally hire the police commissioner or CEO.

None of this is true in the Catholic Church. The Pope is elected from the ranks of the Cardinals. The organization the Pope oversees is a non-profit, religious organization, bound by the Pope's interpretation of the canon. In short, the Pope is in a unique position. He is the moral pinnacle of the Church. Now, if we ask if he is responsible for the criminal acts of members of the Church, the answer is, "No." But he is responsible for everything else. In regard to the sexual criminality of priests in the U.S., the Pope bears no responsibility. HOwever, these priests were transferred from diocese to diocese and never turned into the civil authorities by the Bishops. The Pope was responsible for the coverup. The Pope was responsible for not changing Church policies so that these acts would not be repeated. The Pope is much more than a CEO or Police Commissioner, mainly, he has a sinecure for life. The Vatican has sovereign country status. Since the Pope has virtually dictatorial control of the Church, he is responsible for everything that goes on in it, except for criminal behavior of his underlings until he is notified. If it is allowed after he is aware, then he becomes culpable. This is a long post, but I think you get the gist.

Posted on 11 Jul 2012 01:40:47 BDT
Spin says:
There is no mention in biblical texts, catechism of papal infallibility and no mention of faith and doctrine being derived from him. The first pope to appeal to "infallibility" was Agatho in 680. He did so because his predecessor, Honorius, was about to be accused to heresy. This move set a precedent that contradicted the catholic belief that the Pope derived authrtity from the quite fallible Peter. As for the Pope speaking on behalf of the church, the first Pope to claim this was Bonifce VIII in his Bull, "Unum Sanctum" in 1302. This idea was initiated in an attempt to gain power and control over the many diferent branches and cults that arose in the age of universal christian religious worship. Lastly, the Vatican city is an independent state and has complete autonomy as a a seperate nation. Thus, the Pope is Head of State as well as Head of the Church. As a state, it is involved in internationl politics (the recent furore over the Chinese imprisonment of a catholic bishop shows the churchs involvement in politics), spo hen a Pope is elected, the council must ensure a political leader as well as a religious one. As a state, the Vatican is akin to a totalitarian state, nor a corporation or commercial institution.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2012 05:55:51 BDT
Withnail says:
What if the Chief Constable gets told about the crime and decides that the police would look bad if this got out. So, instead of dealing with it as a crime he tells the police officer you have made a mistake, it's in both our interests to keep this a secret. I have spoken to my colleagues in a neighbouring constabulary- go there and don't kill another wife.

Is the Chief Constable in the clear?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2012 09:47:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jul 2012 09:57:23 BDT
No. They should both go to prison. The police officer for murder, the Chief Constable for criminal neglect of his duties. Simples.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2012 10:20:59 BDT
The Greek Orthodox Church split with Rome over the medieval issue of papal infallibility, ie. they sensibly decided the Pope wasn't infallible.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2012 20:03:52 BDT
DP Laing says:
Spin is right about St Peter changing his mind as per situational analysis and not considering himself infallible. He had an Epiphany of Tears regarding the Roman Army Equestrians/Olympics not being enemies of the Jews (or proto-Christians). Gospel anyway attests that the Romans were following orders, puppeted/ coerced, by the Baal pagans (Secular polydeists of the underworld death cult form, called Satanist by Jesus).
Gospel proposes that the Devil and Nature does all the killing and Trinity the saving, so the Crucifxion-Resurrection combination (rosecross sign) is about God reversing an unjust judicial murder for naughty words, specifically words on rebuilding the Temple in transcendent (synoptic Menorah) form in three 'Emeras', meaning stages, not 'days' (Friday dusk to Sunday dawn is not three days).

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 12:13:09 BDT
F Cadell says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 14:01:03 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 14:01:57 BDT
No, because you were using 'some' to attempt to contradict my use of 'most'.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 14:02:50 BDT
So the story of the Sun god means there is no sun?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2012 14:04:59 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Important Announcement from Amazon
158 3 days ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 79 40 seconds ago
Gay habits and God. Smokers and the devil. 356 1 hour ago
The Virgin Mary. Mother of a God. the Epitome of Female purity and devotion to the Male 11 2 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 2057 4 hours ago
How do Christians decide which rules in the bible should be obeyed? 117 11 hours ago
Why is this Forum so full of.... 13 12 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 916 15 hours ago
Why are atheists without theism, which is to say why are atheists, atheists? 56 17 hours ago
God, Jesus and Skynet. 0 17 hours ago
if you don't like and don't believe in religion nobody says you are religiousphobic. So where did the liberal myth of Islamaphobia come from. 12 1 day ago
A Syrian refugee with a criminal past and a history of assaults in Germany has today killed a woman with a machete. Come here, come to us said Merkel. She MUST STAND DOWN NOW. 29 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  117
Total posts:  4170
Initial post:  27 Nov 2011
Latest post:  29 Mar 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions