Luke 6:22-23: Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

[boatsnguitars]

Luke 6:22-23:

“Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”

The verse makes it clear that Christians will be hated and excluded because they will be associated with Evil - because of Jesus.

Christians might say, "Yes, associated with Evil, but we're the good guys!" But, Jesus must have known his ideas were hateful. He must have known he was preaching hate, or why think his followers would be hated?

Let's see why Christians are considered Evil.
Biblical Teachings:
Interpretations of certain biblical passages, contribute to perceptions of exclusivity and judgmental attitudes, leading to vilification.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Homosexuality):
These passages contain prohibitions against homosexual behavior and are often cited in discussions about LGBTQ+ rights. Some verses that contribute to discrimination and exclusion:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (Women's Roles):
This passage addresses the role of women in the church and has been a source of controversy, with debates over whether it supports or restricts women's leadership roles within religious institutions.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Rape and Marriage):
Critics may point to this passage as problematic due to its prescription for a rapist to marry their victim, raising ethical concerns about the treatment of survivors and the endorsement of such practices.

Psalm 137:9 ("Babylonian Babies" verse):
This verse, which speaks of dashing Babylonian infants against rocks, is sometimes cited to highlight the apparent brutality in certain Old Testament passages, leading to questions about the morality of such narratives.

Exodus 21:20-21 (Treatment of Slaves):
Passages discussing the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament have been criticized for not explicitly condemning slavery and, in some cases, appearing to regulate it.

Matthew 10:34-36 (Division):
This passage, where Jesus speaks about bringing a sword and division, can be controversial when interpreted as promoting conflict, particularly when applied to interfaith or intra-faith relations.

Ephesians 6:5-9 (Slavery and Masters):
Similar to Old Testament passages, New Testament verses that seem to regulate the relationship between slaves and masters have been criticized for not outright condemning slavery.

Numbers 31:17-18 (Treatment of Midianite Women):
This passage describes the killing of male children and the sparing of female children during warfare, which raises moral questions and concerns about the treatment of non-combatant populations.

Genesis 19:1-11 (Sodom and Gomorrah):
This passage is often cited in discussions about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, contributing to debates around the Bible's stance on homosexuality.

Historical Ecclesiastical Misconduct:
Instances of historical misconduct by the Church, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the clergy abuse scandals, have left lasting negative impressions on public perception.
Did Jesus prophesize this, yet say nothing to his followers to avoid it?

Resistance to Social Change:
Resistance or perceived resistance to social and cultural changes, led to criticism and vilification.

Civil Rights Movement:
Many Christian groups resisted the Civil Rights Movement, particularly during the mid-20th century. Some argued against desegregation and equal rights for African Americans based on perceived biblical justifications. The Christians arguing for desegregation were often Black, or Liberal (traditionally vilified by the Church).

Women's Liberation Movement:
Christian denominations have resisted aspects of the women's liberation movement, opposing women's rights, gender equality, and the expansion of roles for women in the church and society.

Reproductive Rights:
Christians, particularly within conservative branches of the faith, have traditionally resisted changes related to reproductive rights, such as access to contraception, abortion rights, and comprehensive sex education. (By Consrevative, we usually mean non-Liberal, non-luke warm Christians who adhere to every jot and tittle of the Bible).

LGBTQ+ Rights:
Most Christian denominations and groups have resisted advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, including marriage equality and protections against discrimination, often citing scriptural interpretations that view homosexuality as incompatible with

Scientific Advancements:
Throughout history, some Christians resisted certain scientific advancements that challenged traditional theological views, such as the heliocentric model of the solar system, the theory of evolution, and more recent debates over issues like climate change.

End-of-Life Issues:
Christians, particularly those in conservative circles, have sometimes resisted changes related to end-of-life issues, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, based on ethical considerations rooted in religious beliefs.

Secularization and Separation of Church and State:
Many Christians have resisted secularization trends and the separation of church and state, advocating for a more direct influence of religious values on governance and public policies.

Cultural Changes:
Christians have, at times, resisted broader cultural changes that are perceived as contrary to traditional values, including shifts in entertainment, fashion, and popular culture.

Environmental Stewardship:
While many Christian groups emphasize the importance of environmental stewardship, there have been instances where resistance to certain environmental policies stems from concerns about economic impact or conflicting interpretations of biblical teachings on human dominion.

Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation:
Many Christians have resisted efforts towards interfaith dialogue and cooperation, particularly with religions that have historically been viewed as competitors or adversaries.

Dogmatism and Intolerance:
The perception of dogmatism and intolerance towards differing beliefs or lifestyles can contribute to the vilification of Christianity. After all, one of the worst things you can do as a Christian is be tolerant of things you call sin, and to waver in your strong, Christian faith.

Missionary Activities and Cultural Imperialism:
Criticisms of missionary activities and perceptions of cultural imperialism contribute to the vilification of Christianity, especially in the context of colonial history.

Sexual Morality Debates:
Debates around sexual morality, including issues like abortion and contraception, may lead to vilification when Christian perspectives clash with broader societal views.

Political Activism:
Involvement in political activism, particularly when aligned with specific controversial policies or candidates, lead to polarization and criticism.

Proselytization Efforts:
Aggressive or perceived aggressive proselytization efforts are viewed negatively, leading to criticism and vilification.

Cultural Insensitivity:
Instances of cultural insensitivity, where Christian practices clash with or dismiss local customs, contribute to negative perceptions.

Hypocrisy:
Publicized instances of hypocrisy among prominent Christian figures or institutions can undermine the credibility of the faith and lead to vilification.

Religious Exclusivity:
Belief in the exclusivity of salvation through Christianity is viewed as intolerant, contributing to negative perceptions of the faith.


Now, I'm sure someone will shrug and say, "Well, that's all humanity! Other groups are just as bad!"

Maybe, but they also don't have a passage in their Holy Text that gives them license to be hated and then say that you'll be rewarded for it...

So, why are Christians vilified?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #58]

I am happy that religion has proved a cure -all for you.

How could you have possibly gotten that out of what I said?

Aside that 'Jesus saved me from the gutter' is a stock old Christian selling - ploy, it doesn't sell me a placebo cure for an illness I don't have, never mind for one that is misdiagnosed (Sin).

Hmmm. Me? I wasn't in the gutter until I became a believer. Jesus had nothing to do with it. And I think, Like Shakespeare said, Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #58]

I am happy that religion has proved a cure -all for you.

How could you have possibly gotten that out of what I said?

Aside that 'Jesus saved me from the gutter' is a stock old Christian selling - ploy, it doesn't sell me a placebo cure for an illness I don't have, never mind for one that is misdiagnosed (Sin).

Hmmm. Me? I wasn't in the gutter until I became a believer. Jesus had nothing to do with it. And I think, Like Shakespeare said, Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

You are right. I misread you. Astonishingly after you became a believer (I assumed Jesus, but maybe not) you headed for the gutter. Well, I have no comment on that.

[The Nice Centurion]

Luke 6:22-23:

“Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”

The verse makes it clear that Christians will be hated and excluded because they will be associated with Evil - because of Jesus.

Christians might say, "Yes, associated with Evil, but we're the good guys!" But, Jesus must have known his ideas were hateful. He must have known he was preaching hate, or why think his followers would be hated?

What you say is absolutely untrue and does not logically follow.

Every new sect is threated with hatred by established religions for a lot of obvious reasons.

Every new Religion founder tends to know that.

The gospels themselves make a great show of this fact when sanhedrin & underlings find a hobby in stalking Jesus and the apostles and finally convince Pilate to crucify Christ.

Look for example at Hauns mill massacre where good evangelical christians back then slayed mormons, even 6 year olds, while shouting: "Its best to put them down when they are young!"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mill_massacre

Numbers 31:17-18 (Treatment of Midianite Women):
This passage describes the killing of male children and the sparing of female children during warfare, which raises moral questions and concerns about the treatment of non-combatant populations.

Not on topic; But this is the only bible passage known to me that touches the Pedophilian movement of jews and christians.
(How old were this girls when raped by the good jews after they slayed the virgins familys?)

I will soon open a thread about it. Pedophilianism and the bibles say about it is talked about far too less.

Everyone is invited to participate then. Dont be shy.

[Clownboat]

Hello Clownboat

"Clownboat wrote: .."You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further. How did you go about proving the other gods are not real? Isn't it foolish to claim they don't exist if you can't prove it?"
------

The question is "The validity of Theism". Do you think belief in any God is ' valid', Clownboat?
Please explain your answer.

I have yet to see valid evidence that would justify the existence for any of the available god concept humans have invented.

[Clownboat]

Your logic betrays you ,Clownboat.

Let's test your words for honesty shall we?

You are not saying that there is no god that you are aware of but that there are no gods.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

You suggest that harbouring the idea that there might be a God is the same as picking one.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

You are saying that even if there was one, you would not have it.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

Isn't that subjectively choosing to slam the door shut, in a perverse and opposite way?

Negative. How you arrived at such a conclusion from what I said is alarming.

You are correct in the underlined point, he is ,in fact, you, and you are he.

I assure you, we are not the same person.

You have been tested for honesty and found wanting. If your preferred god concepts was real, I wonder if it would approve of your behavior here? I would hope not.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #64]

Hello Clownboat

You say- "have yet to see valid evidence that would justify the existence for any of the available god concept humans have invented"
---------
I can understand this qualified answer. There are few stand out ingredients in the casserole of human beliefs. Your answer looks to have an agnostic flavour to it. As I continue to debate the full palate of perspectives regarding God it becomes more difficult for me to identify which side the argument being presented, best serves, my own included. It is like playing with those blocks with numbers and letters on them.

A funny story, Clownboat,...I met a fully fledged ,100%, atheist this week. I was unconvinced that they still existed. This guy, from Derbyshire, went to my local church to celebrate the annual anniversary Mass of my mother. He wore his peeky cap through the whole thing , something I had never seen before.When I asked him, what he was thinking of, he replied that he thought the colour scheme on one of the altars, might look well in his hall. Hats off to this bonafide atheist. Truly impervious to all around him.

I sense that you remain open-minded to the possible presence of God but disagree fundamentally with the theistic caricatures available of same. The best thing to do in that case is to cherry pick vocabulary from all religious thought and use it towards formulating your own ideas into a structure.
It sounds like you are in a queue waiting for your perfect coffee, maybe not. Your knowledge and input, would be appreciated ,one would hope

[Masterblaster]

Hmmm.... ...but that doesn't really calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'. It says fool said in his heart that there is no God.

If a fool has figure this out, what excuse does a religious person have for believing in a god or gods?

How would you prove God is not real? Don't you think it is foolish to claim God does not exist, if you can't prove it?

Interesting point IMO: You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further. How did you go about proving the other gods are not real? Isn't it foolish to claim they don't exist if you can't prove it?

It's not, and here is why:
Proof (the thing you asked for) is for math and liquor, not the gods.
No available god concept has ever been shown to be real though. Do what you want with that real world 'evidence'. It wont stop you from picking a god concept to believe in via faith obviously. Which ironically is the same mechanism for belief in all the god concepts you reject. Weird huh?

Let us talk about intellectual honesty, if you like Clownboat. I get the basic point that you make to 1213 where you use the atheistic standpoint as an example. I described what I would call a real atheist in my previous post.They do not pick or not pick Gods. They are immune to the influence. Your point is now a kind of agnostic soundbite against a particular religious stand using an atheist modus that is not representative of that particular group.

People are doing the same in a reverse way on other threads using secular soundbites to prop up orthodox argument.

How honest is that?
Where are you ,behind your argument Clownboat. Are you just egging the thing on?

[Masterblaster]

Your logic betrays you ,Clownboat.

Let's test your words for honesty shall we?

You are not saying that there is no god that you are aware of but that there are no gods.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

You suggest that harbouring the idea that there might be a God is the same as picking one.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

You are saying that even if there was one, you would not have it.

What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."

Isn't that subjectively choosing to slam the door shut, in a perverse and opposite way?

Negative. How you arrived at such a conclusion from what I said is alarming.

You are correct in the underlined point, he is ,in fact, you, and you are he.

I assure you, we are not the same person.

You have been tested for honesty and found wanting. If your preferred god concepts was real, I wonder if it would approve of your behavior here? I would hope not.

Post 24
Clownboat said - "Interesting point IMO: You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further. How did you go about proving the other gods are not real?
Isn't it foolish to claim they don't exist if you can't prove it?

It's not, and here is why:
Proof (the thing you asked for) is for math and liquor, not the gods.
No available god concept has ever been shown to be real though. Do what you want with that real world 'evidence'. It wont stop you from picking a god concept to believe in via faith obviously. Which ironically is the same mechanism for belief in all the god concepts you reject. Weird huh?"

-------
Hello
I hate these long, copy and paste, I said/you said posts. They are a monumental waste of time. This will be a not -repeatable indulgence for me. I have highlighted what might be relevant to this insignificant titfortat . Good Luck finding Clownboat in all this.

[Clownboat]

Let us talk about intellectual honesty, if you like

No need as it was already discussed and you couldn't refute it.

Masterblaster said: "You are not saying that there is no god that you are aware of but that there are no gods."
It was then shown that you were wrong.
Clownboat said: "What Clownboat actually said was: "You are an atheist when it comes to all the available gods, less one. An atheist shares your position, they just take it one god further."
(This shows that I said no such thing and you were either mistaken or purposely trying to mislead those reading here).

I described what I would call a real atheist in my previous post. They do not pick or not pick Gods. They are immune to the influence.

Then you need to correct your thinking.
An atheist is just someone that is not a theist. A = non and theist = someone that believes in a god or gods. There will be some atheists that will claim there are not gods, but that is not a requirement for being a non theist/atheists.

Your point is now a kind of agnostic soundbite against a particular religious stand using an atheist modus that is not representative of that particular group.

It's more than that. It's shows that religious people and atheists are the same when it comes to available god concepts in that they are all non theists in regards to the gods, a theist just disbelieves in all the gods, less one. Common ground!

How honest is that?

Honest is the wrong word. I don't think you were being dishonest about what an atheist is, I truly think you just didn't know. It's an ignorance issue, not an honesty one.

Where are you ,behind your argument Clownboat. Are you just egging the thing on?

What an odd question, especially since you recently noted post 24.

1213 asked this of me: Don't you think it is foolish to claim God does not exist, if you can't prove it?
I was asked if it is foolish to claim a god (his preferred one) does not exist. So I noted that Christian's (for one example) disbelieve in all the gods, without it being proven, so if such a thing is foolish, then a fool you (generic you) are.
Surely you now see just how on point my observation was?

[Clownboat]

Hello
I hate these long, copy and paste, I said/you said posts. They are a monumental waste of time.

Once again, you need to amend your thinking. It is a fact that I waste less time copy/pasting my words compared to typing them again. It also goes to show the readers how the words are being ignored, even though they are being asked numerous times.

In debate, this is not a waste, nor is pointing to faith as being the mechanism for believing in competing god concepts a waste. It may be uncomfortable, which perhaps is what brought you in to the exchange I was having with 1213.

This will be a not -repeatable indulgence for me. I have highlighted what might be relevant to this insignificant titfortat . Good Luck finding Clownboat in all this.

Now this was an actual waste of time. Irony much?