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?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Clownboat

You said - "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?"

----
I get your basic point, Clownboat and I said that I get it. You were responding to an enquiry, I agree with that. Do you want to explain your reference to atheists on all this. How is an atheist comparable to a person who dismisses Gods, via a preference for a particular God. I drive a Toyota not any other car. Is my lifestyle choice comparable to that of a person who does not have a car? Does the vegan option, define me? Am I comparable to a person who does not eat vegetables. As a general run of the mill omnivore can I call such a comparison.
Thank You for encouraging me to ponder these matters.

...
Just for clarification, I repeat the enquiry by 1213 to you in post 22

" 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?"

I don't think any atheist ever does this Clownboat? You took this to mean( your own words).."I was asked if it is foolish to claim a god (his preferred one) does not exist"

Is that what he asked???

[Masterblaster]

Hello
1213, whom I don't know from Adam was responding to a line of questioning that was prompted by the discussion. He asked for scripture and this was pulled from the OT archives by TRANSPONDER our resident Bible expert( not a criticism) . He came up with this gem from psalms

"Psalm 14
King James Version
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Has anybody an idea how many fools are in Psalms and Proverbs and the OT, generally .They act as a counterweight to the wise. That's how this old stuff rolls. I am all over proverbs at the moment.

1213 response to scripture provided is

1213 "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."

The conversation predictably goes downhill from there. You can read it yourself and that is when you come in Clownboat .
If I believe in God does that mean that I do not believe in others.if I contemplate a God ,do I believe that God. There are many aspects of the Biblical Yahweh that I admire but I am not a Jew. Thanks for the cognitive stimulation. What do you think of the idea of choosing random threads from the past with approx 50 posts and doing a retrospective autopsy on them where we can be partisan and debate vigorously on them. There is some good stuff on this site that is gathering dust. I am up for it if it is initiated by somebody.

[Clownboat]

Do you want to explain your reference to atheists on all this

This will be done again below.

How is an atheist comparable to a person who dismisses Gods?

Neither person would hold to a god belief.

I drive a Toyota not any other car. Is my lifestyle choice comparable to that of a person who does not have a car?

I wouldn't consider driving a Toyota as a lifestyle choice. Such a thing would be a preference (or happenstance if you inherited it for example) for the brand of car you drive.

Does the vegan option, define me?

Not you, just your eating preferences.

Am I comparable to a person who does not eat vegetables?

Yes, I'm sure comparisons could be made (perhaps you both have two legs), just not in regards to vegetables.

As a general run of the mill omnivore can I call such a comparison.

You would need to offer specifics as to what two things you are comparing.

Thank You for encouraging me to ponder these matters.

Your welcome, but to be honest, your questions were so mundane that I almost ignored your post, but perhaps you have a purpose?

Just for clarification, I repeat the enquiry by 1213 to you in post 22
How would you prove God is not real?

The same way you go about proving that I don't have a magical, invisible, undetectable dragon living in my garage. Such things just cannot be done. Again, proof is for math and liquor.

Perhaps you mean the Christian god concept specifically? That one we can test for claimed attributes made about the said god concept. For example, is it claimed that the god concept is loving and do we find an unloving god when we read the book about it? The attributes for the Bible god concept are; angry, vengeful, jealous and an ineffective punisher if we are to trust the book, so not off to a great start.

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

Negative, unbelief in anything is the default. Sufficient reasons to accept an explanation are needed before we should apply belief.
To bring this back full circle. A Christian rejects all god concepts (like an atheist) because they don't find sufficient reasons to believe in them. Less one god, and how is belief justified? By faith, the exact same mechanism that other theists use to believe in their preferred god concept. Do note, the god concept does not even need to be real for this to work.

All an atheist has to do is note the faulty mechanism, not apply it to any of the available god concepts and theism is avoided. But then they don't get to think that they know why they are here or what happens to them when they die. If that is uncomfortable, then said atheist can do what theists do and apply faith to one of the available god concepts.

I don't think any atheist ever does this Clownboat? You took this to mean( your own words).."I was asked if it is foolish to claim a god (his preferred one) does not exist"
Is that what he asked???

Can you rephrase this for me please? I'm unclear as to what you are asking.

[Clownboat]

If I believe in God does that mean that I do not believe in others.

You would need to define what god concept is it that you believe in. For example, the Christian God:
Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Christian beliefs are all over the board though, even with such clarity from the Bible.

There are other god concepts you could apply faith to that would allow belief in additional god concepts if that is a desire of yours though.

if I contemplate a God ,do I believe that God.

No, belief is required for belief, not contemplation. I couldn't imagine believing in every concept I might contemplate.

What do you think of the idea of choosing random threads from the past with approx 50 posts and doing a retrospective autopsy on them where we can be partisan and debate vigorously on them.

I have never considered such a thing.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #73]

Hello Clownboat

Please look at this...

"Just for clarification, I repeat the enquiry by 1213 to you in post 22
" 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?"

Your answer suggested to me that you missed the question. When I use mundane analogy it is in the hope that you will recognize a reasoning dynamic that is common. It is not everyone's 'cup of tea' so thanks for staying with it.

I have a Toyota, no other car. A devout Christian has one God and rejects all others. I have no connection with a non car person and a Christian has no connection ( intellectually) with an atheist, unless you think that they have.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

The opening post is framed in a excellent manner and it has encouraged me to think.

...a license to be a jerk?

I was being mean to atheists by suggesting that they were impure in their beliefs. Here is what I thought a true atheist was..

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

Such a rare intellectual commodity should, in my view be a protected species. They should not be allowed to cross-pollinate lest they become extinct. My snobbishness was excluding lukewarm atheists from the fold. They were mud bloods who carried the sin of their theistic enquiries in their minds.
This led me to contemplate a reverse situation with devout religious people. Imagine if churches said NO!
You were a jerk last week and there is no room for you in this Inn ever! The place would be empty.

That is where the washing, baptising, born again stuff comes in, ie it is an absolute necessity for survival( logically)

I have seen the error of my ways and I will look at born again atheists in a new light, from here on out.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #73]

Hello Clownboat

Please look at this...

"Just for clarification, I repeat the enquiry by 1213 to you in post 22
" 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?"

Your answer suggested to me that you missed the question. When I use mundane analogy it is in the hope that you will recognize a reasoning dynamic that is common. It is not everyone's 'cup of tea' so thanks for staying with it.

I have a Toyota, no other car. A devout Christian has one God and rejects all others. I have no connection with a non car person and a Christian has no connection ( intellectually) with an atheist, unless you think that they have.

The habitual, endemic and basic Theistic logical error is in assuming that the burden of proof is on the doubter, skeptic and atheist to disprove a god (of any kind). But it is on the claimant to validate their claim. The logical burden of proof falls on those who claim there is a god of any kind, even before we get to which one it is.

Believers forever get this wrong. Because Godfaith is at the basis of all their thinking so naturally they think 'God' is a given to be taken as true until 100% disproven. This error of logic is so universal and basic in theist -thinking that one can add it as the third thing after death and taxes. That it is logically false is well known and has been for decades but none of them appear to have heard of it.

cue: dismissal of logic as 'human opinion'.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER
"I have a Toyota, no other car. A devout Christian has one God and rejects all others. I have no connection with a non car person and a Christian has no connection ( intellectually) with an atheist, unless you think that they have"

This has nothing to do with Burden of Proof, T. The point was directed at Clownboat.

This was about the lack of intellectual connection that should exist between a so called devout Christian and a genuine atheist.

In actuality, our atheist/theist debates are more akin to trench warfare , where it is constantly unclear where the mud stops and the people begin.
Our disputes are over flags. You fight for no God and I fight for a god and this perpetual ceasefire game of football continues to be played in no mans land.
I think that there is the width of a piece of paper between our real beliefs but you may totally disagree. It is forty gradations of mud. What is wrong with my Toyota question. Highlight it's flaws.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Logically, in my book , an atheist would be so impervious to theistic genre stuff that their encounter with it would be accidental. I doubt if I will ever engage with fairy folklore unless I do a degree in the thing, which I will not.

What is the fascination for atheists in theistic thought? To me it is like the guy in Vegas who cannot stay away from the tables.

This lameduck excuse about protecting the skies from lies is laughable. Imagine an atheist on a crusade (absurd). Work for reform from a theistic platform or even an anti-theist one, for that matter.. Work from within if you are really interested. You cannot act as a litmus test for anything from without.
Atheism ,when it engages in theistic thought discussions ,really needs to define itself.
All roads lead back to this.
"Just for clarification, I repeat the enquiry by 1213 to you in post 22
" 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?"
Call yourself an agnostic, for God's sake.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER
"I have a Toyota, no other car. A devout Christian has one God and rejects all others. I have no connection with a non car person and a Christian has no connection ( intellectually) with an atheist, unless you think that they have"

This has nothing to do with Burden of Proof, T. The point was directed at Clownboat.

This was about the lack of intellectual connection that should exist between a so called devout Christian and a genuine atheist.

In actuality, our atheist/theist debates are more akin to trench warfare , where it is constantly unclear where the mud stops and the people begin.
Our disputes are over flags. You fight for no God and I fight for a god and this perpetual ceasefire game of football continues to be played in no mans land.
I think that there is the width of a piece of paper between our real beliefs but you may totally disagree. It is forty gradations of mud. What is wrong with my Toyota question. Highlight it's flaws.

I purposely ignored the point about the choice of car as it was irrelevant. You may interpret the debate how you like. It is irrelevant. All that counts is the firepower and weaponry either side can bring, whether in muddy trenches or in open order and advancing with rifles oiled.

"I didn't tell you where to aim your guns; don't tell me where i should have aimed mine". (Welington, I believe).

I have no intention (and I hope this goes for others) in adapting my methods to suit your approval.