Throughout history, there has been quite a few Christians who claim they hate Jews, "because they killed Jesus".

This is a silly accusation. We cannot blame anyone living in our times for things that his or her ancestors by an off chance may have been a part of (the Jewish mob condemning Jesus must have been a rather small part of the whole Jewish people). Furthermore, it was the Romans who sentenced Jesus to death and executed the sentence, why blame that on the Jews?

It is also silly for another reason. If Jesus had not been killed, He would not have atoned for the sins of man by sacrificing Himself, as any Christian theologist would say He did. He would also not have risen from the dead, thus proving that he could defeat death and promising his future followers that they would wake up from death in the future. Thus, the killing of Jesus, by those few Jews, was vital for the salvation of the Christians. That is therefore nothing to accuse them for. The consequences are rather something to thank them for.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I sincerely doubt that anybody who used this excuse actually cared about the historical/theological details. They'd have to ignore the rather obvious fact that Jesus was a Jew.

I actually have never met a christian that hated the jews........

or they have to ignore the fact that Crucifixion was a Roman punishment.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

You are right, of course. Either they did not care, or was too ignorant to know.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

If one can credit the New Testament, Christianity did not have a creditable beginning. According to the Gospels, Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver; while Peter denied Christ thrice. Peter went on, with the help of Paul, to capitalize on Christ’s betrayal in the longest pyramid scheme in history by propagating the religious hoax of his resurrection through a series of chain letters known as the “Epistles.” Judas, at least, had the decency to return the money, and go hang himself.

That was a very odd paragraph to follow the opening sentence "if one can credit the New Testament..." since, if one can credit the new testament gospels, it wasn't a hoax.

I really do not know how I can top this!

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

"I do not fell obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. . .in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."

Galileo Galilei

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that if one can credit the New Testament with regard to the account of Judas' betrayal and/or other worldly actions, then one can credit it with regard to supernatural phenomena.

When I describe how I watched the show of a magician last night, it either means that I'm making it up or that I actually witnessed the show but in no way does it mean that the tricks were anything else than tricks. So, if I actually watched the show, one can perfectly well credit my account of it even though the show itself contained hoaxes.

Christ (if he existed at all) was an unworldly philosopher. Do you think that the man who passed out the loaves and fishes to the multitude on the shores of the Sea of Galilee would be branded a liberal today? How long do you think Jesus would last in the hands of our good Christian friends? If Christ returned to earth, he would be assassinated by Pat Robertson.

GIVE US BARABBAS!

True enough. I merely found the paragraph amusing since the assumption that the whole thing is some sort of "religious hoax" has nothing to do with "crediting" the new testement.

I'm not sure what either of these sentences mean.
What does "unworldly philosopher" mean?
What does passing out bread have to with liberalism? Liberal in what sense?

I suppose it depends on precisely which of the world's 2 billion "good Christian friends" you're referring to. Notably, He was killed by the religious leaders in the first place, so you might not be too far off the mark.

Can there be so many? Indeed, one wonders who are the “good” Christians? How many have lived in imitation of the life of Christ? How many have followed in Christ’s footsteps? - Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, perhaps? There are many pretenders, but only a few saints to be found among all the pious frauds - too many of them pass more gas than gospel! George Bernard Shaw was once asked what he thought of Christianity. He paused to consider for a moment, and then, with a sly smile, answered: "I don't know; it might work if anyone ever tried it.”

I just pulled the number as a rough estimate from wikipedia (ultimate fount of all knowledge and truth that it is). I'm sure it all depends on one's definitions.

I like the Shaw quote, BTW.