Christianity and Hatred for People

[unknown soldier]

Is there a relationship between Christianity and hatred for people? I've read that early on the critics of Christianity accused it of being hatred for humanity. Most apologists would strongly deny such a charge. They tell us that Christ taught love and that all those who would hate in his name are acting against his teachings. To begin to resolve this disagreement, let's take a look at what two "locals" have to say.

By what the Bible tells, God has decided to give eternal life for righteous and others will die.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but therighteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift ofGod is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

I think that is good, because if unrighteous people would live forever, they would turn the eternal life into eternal suffering for all, which I think would not be nice.

I dont think death is evil.

I am sure that those that look at these societies that God destroyed and know they are doing the things that God destroyed these societies do look at these acts in fear, and dread. If they do not look at these societies that God destroyed with fear and dread then the next best thing is blame and denial...

...God knows the future. God knew the eternal destiny of all of those that He put to death before He sentenced them to eternal separation from His goodness. That is what dying without belief in Jesus or in this case God is eternal separation from the goodness of God.

When I read comments like these I tend to feel threatened and degraded. Am I such a worthless wretch that my life can be snuffed out any time at the Christian God's whim, and Christians would just shrug their shoulders saying I got what I deserved? Can my entire community be destroyed if some "guy in the sky" judges it to be disobedient to him?

In any event, I sure don't feel loved.

[Tcg]

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of Jesus the Nazarene." -

Albert Einstein, German-born scientist

Albert Einstein expressed his opinion about the Bible as well:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Tcg

[unknown soldier]

And that's enough for now. I get tired of repeating corrections.

Your so called "corrections" seem to amount to repeating your accusations...

If somebody is repeatedly accusing another party, I think it's best to pay attention because those accusations might just be right! And we wouldn't want a guilty party to get away because we refused to listen, now would we?

...cherry picking scripture...

Why is it that when I cite Bible passages, I'm cherry picking? You cite the Bible often enough, and I could just dismiss all that as cherry picking too.

...or (in the case of the ludicrous claim Jesus hated all Jews past and present, including those he loved)...

Great job of begging the question here, JW. To prove Jesus didn't hate all Jews, you say he couldn't have hated the ones he loved. Where does this circle start?

We know Jesus didn't hate all Jews because he loved some of them
and,
we know Jesus loved some Jews because he didn't hate all of them.

...scrambling for some rather inventive but ultimately comical symbolism.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

All this must indeed be truly exhausting!

It can be! Did you ever try to convince a flat-earther that the earth is spherical? It's like that.

You have accused Jesus of ...

- treating his family with contempt
- displaying a poor attitude toward women and sex.
- encouraging his disciples to abuse their children

Yes. I hope you read my documentation earlier on this thread. You can even read the Bible if you have not done so.

Even the most rabid, unreasoning bible-hating, antichristian would recognise such accusations as being a gross misrepresentation of the Jesus of the bible.

Well, I guess I'm "rabider" than most anti-Christians. You might be surprised, though, because there are many free-thinking critics of Christianity who know well the dark side of the Christ myth. Do you really think that all the harm that's been done by the Christ myth has nothing to do with Christ? It's no coincidence; his rants are the very roots of many centuries of ignorance, superstition, and violence. In you own group, for example, marriages, families, and friendships have been destroyed as a result of Christ's influence. It's no secret that you deny people life-saving blood transfusions resulting in their deaths, and all of it comes from your belief in Christ!

When asked for supporting evidence to back up your incoherent baseless accusations, you have either declined or ignored the request.

I've posted that evidence. You deny it. I'm not surprised.

Kudos however for sticking to your guns, I (and by far the majority of people , theist or antitheist alike) might not agree with you, but one would have to go deep into the bible belt to find such passionate opinions on Jesus of Nazareth.

Maybe you've never thought of this, but I actually care about people. I don't want to see people get hurt, and I sure as heck don't want to see people die as a result of that abuse. I think it's stupid and evil to uphold a myth over real people. I'm just glad to see that at least some people are waking up to the harm done by religious leaders like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Smith, CT Russell, and Jesus of Nazareth.

[tam]

Peace to you,

...you must ignore the evidence we have of the commands and teachings from Christ to His disciples on how they are to treat even their enemies; and we are to obey the commands of Christ if indeed we love Him and are truly His disciples.

Everything you've posted I've read and I know. I've already explained to you exactly why I call it "the smile on the crocodile."

Ignore, dismiss, call it what you will: you take a single verse that you want to be true (one that you believe supports your case) and you ignore or dismiss all the many verses and examples that dispute or even refute your case.

Hence, you have been accused of cherry-picking.

As far as I can recall, you have also provided no evidence to support your 'smile on the crocodile' hypothesis, other than your own opinion and supposition.

Please show in that quote where Christ says that all Jews were involved in that killing.

You've already done that for me, and I pointed it out to you!

Please write it out.

I just checked the NRSV Bible, and the term "the Jews" appears sixty times in John. In every instance I've checked in John, "the Jews" refers to all Jews. So in John 5:18, for example, we read, "...the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him," which essentially is accusing all the Jews of trying to kill Christ.

See, now, what you are saying here cannot be true. It is impossible. Or have you forgotten that the apostles and first disciples were all Jews? Are you suggesting that these ones were also trying to kill Christ?

Tam, according to the Christ myth one of the apostles of Christ engineered Jesus' arrest and subsequent execution. His name, you should know, means "Jew." So Judas basically symbolizes the murderous Jew who killed Christ. Christ said that this "Jew" had a devil.

This is incorrect.

First - The name Judas (a form of Judah) means praised.

https://www.babynames.com/name/judas
https://www.behindthename.com/name/judah

Jews are the people who are descended from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin (who made up the two-tribe southern Kingdom of Judah, after Israel split into 2 kingdoms).


Second - Christ, in speaking to all twelve (Jewish) apostles, said:

"Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

So it makes no sense for you to try and suggest that Judas somehow symbolized all Jews, or that Christ was calling all Jews 'devils', when the text states just the opposite of this.

Of course, I know full well that in the Christ myth the apostles were Jews. It appears that if anybody forgot that detail, it was whoever wrote the Gospel of John. When people create works of fiction, they often get parts of the plot in conflict with some of the details of the story. I think that's what John did.

Is that your expert opinion? Because, you know, it makes a lot more sense that you are the one in error here. The evidence is certainly not on your side; in fact it refutes what you have just said. The author knew full well that the apostles and earliest disciples - including the disciple Christ loved (the author) and Mary and Martha, were all Jews... because he wrote them as such.

Your explanations come off as nothing more than straw-clutching.

I just call them like I see them. Of course we need to use our better judgment when deciding what is or is not love. If Christ thought so little of the lives of his followers that he knowingly led them into situations in which they might get killed, then he did not love them.

This a hateful accusation.

It sure is hateful. I hate it when people are duped into harmful situations like religious leaders often do. Do you love it?

Do you also believe that Martin Luther King JR. hated black people; hated everyone who stood with the civil rights movement? Because, you know, some were murdered for standing up for civil rights (theirs or others). What about Harriet Tubman or anyone else who fought to free slaves and who inspired others to help in those movements?

Christ also freed people - from subjection to death, from lies (including religious lies), from the heavy burdens that the Pharisees and others had(have) loaded upon the people; from fear; etc. Those things might not matter to you, or you might not believe that He did these thigns, but obviously these things matter to us who love Him and His Father, and who are loved by Him and His Father... and who have been set free by Him.

In fact, just one of the great gifts that I have received from my Lord (the Truth) is the freedom to love, to forgive, to be merciful - to anyone, everyone, even my enemies.

(I did not find that freedom in a religion.)

Blame the person (and people) bearing witness to the truth for being persecuted and even murdered for that reason... but don't blame the people doing the murdering and the persecuting?

I suppose I can blame both parties. If I know that there are those who would kill people for doing what I convince people to do, then I share the blame if those I convince get killed. Christ knew he was endangering other Jews, so if his story is true, then he shares guilt for their execution under the Romans.

If His story is true, then He saves people from Death (and the other things mentioned above); He sent His disciples out to bear witness to the truth, to invite people to come to Him (to Life) and to the Kingdom, to be reconciled to God, and to have life (eternal life even) to the FULL.


Do you really think anything in that merits being persecuted or murdered?

If the evidence is present that Christianity teaches something that is not from Christ - then regardless of what "can" be said of me (true or false) - it will still be true that Christianity teaches something that is not from Christ.

What does Christianity teach that's not from Christ?

Do you agree with the point that I made?

That is a pretty low bar you have set for what constitutes a poor attitude toward women (and neither did He encourage His apostles not to marry...

That's baloney! (See Matthew 19:10-12.)

That was for the one who can accept it. That is not for anyone, and certainly not for anyone who cannot accept it - male OR female. He did not discourage His apostles from marrying (in fact, you can see that some apostles did indeed have wives, before and even after Matt 19:10-12. Christ certainly did not encourage divorce).



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[unknown soldier]

Ignore, dismiss, call it what you will: you take a single verse that you want to be true (one that you believe supports your case) and you ignore or dismiss all the many verses and examples that dispute or even refute your case.

I see I'm repeating myself again. I've read the entire Bible. I am well aware of all those Bible passages you have posted, and I know that the word "love" appears in the story of Christ.

OK? Are you with me so far?

Now, it's important to understand that if I'm not convinced by what you say or disagree with what you say, then it does not logically follow that I'm dismissing or ignoring what you say. In fact, I'm not ignoring or dismissing what you say. I've done my best to explain why I'm unconvinced by what you argue, so please give me credit for that much.

Agreed?

Hence, you have been accused of cherry-picking.

Yes, I've been accused of cherry picking. Does that mean I'm guilty of cherry picking?

As far as I can recall, you have also provided no evidence to support your 'smile on the crocodile' hypothesis, other than your own opinion and supposition.

What you're saying here is flat-out false. On numerous occasions I've posted evidence to back up my case that Christ was a hateful and harmful figure.

So who's dismissing and ignoring evidence now?

Tam, according to the Christ myth one of the apostles of Christ engineered Jesus' arrest and subsequent execution. His name, you should know, means "Jew." So Judas basically symbolizes the murderous Jew who killed Christ. Christ said that this "Jew" had a devil.

This is incorrect.

First - The name Judas (a form of Judah) means praised.

Sorry, Tam, but I think you just flunked etymology. That's one meaning of Judas, but by the time the New Testament was written, the word "Juda-" became associated with Jews in some way. Judah, for example, started out as a person and later a tribe and then a kingdom of Israelites. So by the time the gospels were written, the name Judas was understood as a person closely associated with all things Jewish.

You appear to have a confirmation bias here disregarding the bulk of the evidence and basing your conclusion on what evidence supports what you disagree with.

Of course, I know full well that in the Christ myth the apostles were Jews. It appears that if anybody forgot that detail, it was whoever wrote the Gospel of John. When people create works of fiction, they often get parts of the plot in conflict with some of the details of the story. I think that's what John did.

Is that your expert opinion?

It appears to be a very plausible explanation for John's bizarre negativity toward Jews. John was the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, and by that time the Christian sect may have given up on converting Jews. "If you can't join them, then beat them."

Do you also believe that Martin Luther King JR. hated black people; hated everyone who stood with the civil rights movement? Because, you know, some were murdered for standing up for civil rights (theirs or others). What about Harriet Tubman or anyone else who fought to free slaves and who inspired others to help in those movements?

In those cases the leaders in question had the laudable goal of freeing people from slavery. In Christ's case he just wanted to have people worship him and see him as their savior. None of his goals were worth dying for.

In fact, just one of the great gifts that I have received from my Lord (the Truth) is the freedom to love, to forgive, to be merciful - to anyone, everyone, even my enemies.

Tam, you were always able to forgive, love, and show mercy. We're all able to do so. Christ is irrelevant in that regard.

If His story is true, then He saves people from Death (and the other things mentioned above); He sent His disciples out to bear witness to the truth, to invite people to come to Him (to Life) and to the Kingdom, to be reconciled to God, and to have life (eternal life even) to the FULL.

Do you really think anything in that merits being persecuted or murdered?

It might well get people murdered. If the followers of Christ appeared to be rebellious following Christ as their king, then the Romans would almost certainly have executed them. If Christ existed, then he would have known full well that he was endangering his followers. He even told them that he was leading them into danger.

Again, that's a perverted view of love.

What does Christianity teach that's not from Christ?

Do you agree with the point that I made?

I don't know what's "from Christ," but as far as I can tell Christians base their dogmas on their slant on what is attributed to Christ. So no, I don't agree with your characterizing Christianity as teaching what is "not from Christ." If you want me to see you as getting it right while Christians get it wrong, then sorry, if anything I think they often get right what you get wrong.

And again, what does Christianity teach that's not from Christ?

Finally, I've come up with some devastating evidence that Christ did not heal Jews because he loved them. I will start a thread on that issue soon.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Ignore, dismiss, call it what you will: you take a single verse that you want to be true (one that you believe supports your case) and you ignore or dismiss all the many verses and examples that dispute or even refute your case.

I see I'm repeating myself again. I've read the entire Bible. I am well aware of all those Bible passages you have posted, and I know that the word "love" appears in the story of Christ.

OK? Are you with me so far?

Now, it's important to understand that if I'm not convinced by what you say or disagree with what you say, then it does not logically follow that I'm dismissing or ignoring what you say.

You dismiss or ignore (call it what you will) the many verses and examples from what is written which disputes or even refutes your case.

Hence, you have been accused of cherry-picking.

Yes, I've been accused of cherry picking. Does that mean I'm guilty of cherry picking?

You questioned someone on why you were accused of cherry-picking. The above explanation is a reason for that.

As far as I can recall, you have also provided no evidence to support your 'smile on the crocodile' hypothesis, other than your own opinion and supposition.

What you're saying here is flat-out false. On numerous occasions I've posted evidence to back up my case that Christ was a hateful and harmful figure.

So who's dismissing and ignoring evidence now?

I will repeat: you have provided opinion and supposition.

Tam, according to the Christ myth one of the apostles of Christ engineered Jesus' arrest and subsequent execution. His name, you should know, means "Jew." So Judas basically symbolizes the murderous Jew who killed Christ. Christ said that this "Jew" had a devil.

This is incorrect.

First - The name Judas (a form of Judah) means praised.

Sorry, Tam, but I think you just flunked etymology. That's one meaning of Judas, but by the time the New Testament was written, the word "Juda-" became associated with Jews in some way. Judah, for example, started out as a person and later a tribe and then a kingdom of Israelites. So by the time the gospels were written, the name Judas was understood as a person closely associated with all things Jewish.

Why do you write this as if I did not also state:

**

https://www.babynames.com/name/judas
https://www.behindthename.com/name/judah

Jews are the people who are descended from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin (who made up the two-tribe southern Kingdom of Judah, after Israel split into 2 kingdoms).


**

So a) I provided you the link to the etymology of the name Judas; and b) I wrote right there that Jews are associated with Judah - since Jews are descended from the two-tribe southern Kingdom of Judah (made up of the tribes Judah and Benjamin).


But let's deal with your claims:

Sorry, Tam, but I think you just flunked etymology. That's one meaning of Judas,

I provided you the links that support what I said. Ignore or dismiss it if you will, but the information is there for anyone to see.

but by the time the New Testament was written, the word "Juda-" became associated with Jews in some way. Judah, for example, started out as a person and later a tribe and then a kingdom of Israelites.

1 - Obviously Jews are associated with Judah, since Jews are descended from the southern Kingdom of Judah (made up of the two tribes: Judah and Benjamin). I wrote that in my original post to you, so there is no merit to your accusation of confirmation bias.

2 - Judah did start out as a person (as did Benjamin, Gad, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Joseph, Dan, Naphtali, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun) and his descendants formed the tribe of Judah (as did the descendants of Benjamin, Gad, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Joseph, Dan, Naphtali, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, form the other eleven tribes according to their names). But the Kingdom of Israel was formed not just from Judah, but from all twelve tribes. Later, after Solomon died, the united Kingdom of Israel (all twelve tribes) split into 2 kingdoms: the Kingdom of Judah (made up of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) from which the Jews are descended.... and... the Kingdom of Israel (made up of the other ten tribes; many considered to be lost, but from whom Samaritans were descended).

So by the time the gospels were written, the name Judas was understood as a person closely associated with all things Jewish.

Again (from my previous post):

**
Second - Christ, in speaking to all twelve (Jewish) apostles, said:

"Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

So it makes no sense for you to try and suggest that Judas somehow symbolized all Jews, or that Christ was calling all Jews 'devils', when the text states just the opposite of this.

**

Of course, I know full well that in the Christ myth the apostles were Jews. It appears that if anybody forgot that detail, it was whoever wrote the Gospel of John. When people create works of fiction, they often get parts of the plot in conflict with some of the details of the story. I think that's what John did.

Is that your expert opinion?

It appears to be a very plausible explanation for John's bizarre negativity toward Jews. John was the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, and by that time the Christian sect may have given up on converting Jews. "If you can't join them, then beat them."

Again, from my previous post:

**

Because, you know, it makes a lot more sense that you are the one in error here. The evidence is certainly not on your side; in fact it refutes what you have just said. The author knew full well that the apostles and earliest disciples - including the disciple Christ loved (the author) and Mary and Martha, were all Jews... because he wrote them as such.

**


I'm going to also point out that first, you say that the author of John forgot the apostles were Jews because he was writing fiction (an absurd claim, for the reasons already stated in italics above); then you turn around in the same breath and enter in a 'real - world' scenario when you claim that it may have been a matter of 'if you can't join them, then beat them' since the Christian sect may have given up on converting Jews at that time.

None of this is evidence. ALL of this is supposition and opinion. And it is all over the place.

Do you also believe that Martin Luther King JR. hated black people; hated everyone who stood with the civil rights movement? Because, you know, some were murdered for standing up for civil rights (theirs or others). What about Harriet Tubman or anyone else who fought to free slaves and who inspired others to help in those movements?

In those cases the leaders in question had the laudable goal of freeing people from slavery. In Christ's case he just wanted to have people worship him and see him as their savior. None of his goals were worth dying for.

What you have said about what Christ wanted is false (and opinion being asserted without evidence).

Again,

Christ also freed people - from subjection to death, from lies (including religious lies), from the heavy burdens that the Pharisees and others had(have) loaded upon the people; from fear; etc. Those things might not matter to you, or you might not believe that He did these thigns, but obviously these things matter to us who love Him and His Father, and who are loved by Him and His Father... and who have been set free by Him.


If His story is true, then He saves people from Death (and the other things mentioned above); He sent His disciples out to bear witness to the truth, to invite people to come to Him (to Life) and to the Kingdom, to be reconciled to God, and to have life (eternal life even) to the FULL.


He also healed many Jews out of compassion for them. Defended the (Jewish) people from the Pharisees who judged and condemned them, laying heavy burdens on them, etc.


And lets not forget your claim (and this is the claim that I was disputing):

If Christ thought so little of the lives of his followers that he knowingly led them into situations in which they might get killed, then he did not love them. - unknown soldier

Replace Christ with Martin Luther King Jr (or someone similar) and see how that claim holds up.

In fact, just one of the great gifts that I have received from my Lord (the Truth) is the freedom to love, to forgive, to be merciful - to anyone, everyone, even my enemies.

Tam, you were always able to forgive, love, and show mercy. We're all able to do so. Christ is irrelevant in that regard.

Christ is not irrelevant in that regard, especially not when religion and religious leaders (and others in this world) teach people to judge and to hate, etc. Something you agree that "Christianity" (and its leaders) has done. Despite the words and example of Christ.

If His story is true, then He saves people from Death (and the other things mentioned above); He sent His disciples out to bear witness to the truth, to invite people to come to Him (to Life) and to the Kingdom, to be reconciled to God, and to have life (eternal life even) to the FULL.

Do you really think anything in that merits being persecuted or murdered?

It might well get people murdered.

This did not answer the question I asked.



Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[unknown soldier]

You dismiss or ignore (call it what you will) the many verses and examples from what is written which disputes or even refutes your case.

What case is that? I assume you mean my case that what Christ reputedly said has either directly or indirectly led to hatred and violence. If I were to broadly criticize your arguments, I'd say that your approach is like looking at all the healthy parts of a person with cancer and then concluding that that person is healthy. You need to look at the whole person and recognize that although the tumors are but a small part of the body, they are deadly nevertheless and will likely adversely affect the whole body. I look at the Christ myth that way: I look at the whole story and can see the "tumors" that are potentially harmful.

Another problem I see with your reasoning is that you cannot think critically because you are determined to make the Christ figure out to be good. If you think that way, then you cannot accept any evidence that he was not good.

I will repeat: you have provided opinion and supposition.

Are the Bible passages I've cited "opinion and supposition"?

So it makes no sense for you to try and suggest that Judas somehow symbolized all Jews, or that Christ was calling all Jews 'devils', when the text states just the opposite of this.

Maybe my memory is failing me in my old age, but I do not recall saying that Christ called all Jews devils although he got very close to doing so when he insulted them saying that their father is the Devil.

By the way, one of the most harmful doctrines from the Christ figure is that of his preaching Satan. The doctrine of the Devil is a pernicious superstition that has led to much paranoia and violence. The Inquisition was inspired by Christ's "Devil doctrine" to imprison, torture, and burn supposed witches at the stake having accused them of consorting with Satan.

The author knew full well that the apostles and earliest disciples - including the disciple Christ loved (the author) and Mary and Martha, were all Jews... because he wrote them as such.

John may have hated them. He might as well have. If they had lived when Christ's dogmas ruled the world, they would have been persecuted along with other Jews.

...you say that the author of John forgot the apostles were Jews because he was writing fiction (an absurd claim, for the reasons already stated in italics above); then you turn around in the same breath and enter in a 'real - world' scenario when you claim that it may have been a matter of 'if you can't join them, then beat them' since the Christian sect may have given up on converting Jews at that time.

None of this is evidence. ALL of this is supposition and opinion. And it is all over the place.

I must suppose and opine when the evidence is weak or nonexistent like it is with the Christ myth. That's not my fault that we know so little about the Christ figure.

What you have said about what Christ wanted is false (and opinion being asserted without evidence).

Again,

Christ also freed people - from subjection to death, from lies (including religious lies), from the heavy burdens that the Pharisees and others had(have) loaded upon the people; from fear; etc.

And who is spouting "opinion being asserted without evidence" now? Not to mention that much of what you just posted is flat-out false. Nobody was ever freed from subjection to death or fear or lies. I'm sure not freed from subjection to lies as I can clearly see here. Do you really expect me to believe that kind of nonsense?

I think that's about all I can stomach for now, but before I go, I should ask you why, if Christ is so great, then why have you showed no sympathy at all for the people I've told you have been victimized by fanatical religious leaders? All I've seen is cold, calculated determination to preserve the Christ figure's presumably good reputation.

[tam]

Peace to you,

You dismiss or ignore (call it what you will) the many verses and examples from what is written which disputes or even refutes your case.

What case is that?

The case in which you claimed that Christ hated Jews (post 87). From my response (I have underlined the relevant part, about what I claimed you were ignoring or dismissing):

Christ did not hate the Jews. I will repeat that a) He was a Jew, b) He came first to His own (the Jews), c) He defended the poor and downtrodden Jews from those who were mistreating them (some Jewish religious leaders); d) He forgave Jews, e) saved the lives of Jews (including their physical lives); f) healed Jews; g) fed Jews; h) asked His Father to forgive even those Jews who handed Him over to be executed.

"Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

You must ignore all that evidence to insist that Christ hated Jews, and that if Christians were like Christ, they would also hate Jews. Again, you must ignore the evidence we have of the commands and teachings from Christ to His disciples on how they are to treat even their enemies; and we are to obey the commands of Christ if indeed we love Him and are truly His disciples.

I will repeat: you have provided opinion and supposition.

Are the Bible passages I've cited "opinion and supposition"?

I do not recall you providing bible passages as evidence of your 'smile on the crocodile' hypothesis. If I recall, you did claim that other religious leaders spoke of love but did the opposite. But Christ actually DID the love that He preached. In fact, since you claim that Christ hated the Jews, and it is also shown that He had compassion on the Jews and healed them... well, that means Christ DID show love even to His enemies, exactly the thing that He preached: love your enemies; do good to those who harm you; pray for those who persecute you; bless those who curse you.

So it makes no sense for you to try and suggest that Judas somehow symbolized all Jews, or that Christ was calling all Jews 'devils', when the text states just the opposite of this.

Maybe my memory is failing me in my old age, but I do not recall saying that Christ called all Jews devils although he got very close to doing so when he insulted them saying that their father is the Devil.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Can you clarify what your point was when you offered the following?

Tam, according to the Christ myth one of the apostles of Christ engineered Jesus' arrest and subsequent execution. His name, you should know, means "Jew." So Judas basically symbolizes the murderous Jew who killed Christ. Christ said that this "Jew" had a devil.

By the way, one of the most harmful doctrines from the Christ figure is that of his preaching Satan. The doctrine of the Devil is a pernicious superstition that has led to much paranoia and violence. The Inquisition was inspired by Christ's "Devil doctrine" to imprison, torture, and burn supposed witches at the stake having accused them of consorting with Satan.

The inquisition (as well as burning supposed witches at the stake) was not inspired by anything Christ taught. I have already responded to this kind of thing throughout the thread.

The author knew full well that the apostles and earliest disciples - including the disciple Christ loved (the author) and Mary and Martha, were all Jews... because he wrote them as such.

John may have hated them. He might as well have. If they had lived when Christ's dogmas ruled the world, they would have been persecuted along with other Jews.

This is also supposition, unknown soldier (and a bit ironic, considering who the author of "John" actually was. I digress...)

...you say that the author of John forgot the apostles were Jews because he was writing fiction (an absurd claim, for the reasons already stated in italics above); then you turn around in the same breath and enter in a 'real - world' scenario when you claim that it may have been a matter of 'if you can't join them, then beat them' since the Christian sect may have given up on converting Jews at that time.

None of this is evidence. ALL of this is supposition and opinion. And it is all over the place.

I must suppose and opine when the evidence is weak or nonexistent like it is with the Christ myth. That's not my fault that we know so little about the Christ figure.

You 'must' do nothing of the sort. You 'choose' to opine and suppose. You could simply refrain from saying anything at all.

But thank you for admitting that this is opinion and supposition.

What you have said about what Christ wanted is false (and opinion being asserted without evidence).

Again,

Christ also freed people - from subjection to death, from lies (including religious lies), from the heavy burdens that the Pharisees and others had(have) loaded upon the people; from fear; etc.

And who is spouting "opinion being asserted without evidence" now?

These are things that are written, so none of them have been asserted without evidence. Christ came to bear witness to the truth; Christ came to give His life as a ransom sacrifice for many (so that others may have life), and He came to give us His yoke (which is light) as opposed to the heavy yoke that the Pharisees and religious leaders piled upon people. If you like, I will post the supporting evidence from what is written.

Not to mention that much of what you just posted is flat-out false. Nobody was ever freed from subjection to death or fear or lies. I'm sure not freed from subjection to lies as I can clearly see here.

Why would you expect to be freed from lies, when, instead of listening to Christ (the Truth), you are still believing (and repeating) the lies that religion (and others) have taught you?

(the tradition doctrine of hell-fire for example?)

The invitation that Christ has given (to anyone who wishes; to anyone who thirsts; to anyone who is weary and burdened):

"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matt 11:28

From John 8:32

"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Then in John 8:36, He highlights WHO that truth is:

"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

I think that's about all I can stomach for now, but before I go, I should ask you why, if Christ is so great, then why have you showed no sympathy at all for the people I've told you have been victimized by fanatical religious leaders? All I've seen is cold, calculated determination to preserve the Christ figure's presumably good reputation.

I'm not sure exactly what you're expecting on a discussion forum, but if you go back to my very first post on this thread, I call out the terrible things that religion (and its leaders) have done to innocent people.

You know who else called out religious leaders for abusing the innocent (condemning them, blaming them, loading up heavy burdens upon them, not showing them mercy, etc)?

Christ did.



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear as the Spirit and the Bride say to YOU, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of LIFE!"



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[unknown soldier]

By the way, one of the most harmful doctrines from the Christ figure is that of his preaching Satan. The doctrine of the Devil is a pernicious superstition that has led to much paranoia and violence. The Inquisition was inspired by Christ's "Devil doctrine" to imprison, torture, and burn supposed witches at the stake having accused them of consorting with Satan.

The inquisition (as well as burning supposed witches at the stake) was not inspired by anything Christ taught. I have already responded to this kind of thing throughout the thread.

I post the facts, and you dismiss them. I'm not going to waste my time with that kind of nonsense. People who really love others don't deny the horrific harm done to others and the reasons that harm was done. I truly care about people, and I do so not because of Christ but because I learned just how evil he really is. You, by contrast, just accept all the death and destruction as mere collateral damage. You just ignore and dismiss it. What's all that matter when you can have a really cool myth to enjoy?

[tam]

Peace to you,

By the way, one of the most harmful doctrines from the Christ figure is that of his preaching Satan. The doctrine of the Devil is a pernicious superstition that has led to much paranoia and violence. The Inquisition was inspired by Christ's "Devil doctrine" to imprison, torture, and burn supposed witches at the stake having accused them of consorting with Satan.

The inquisition (as well as burning supposed witches at the stake) was not inspired by anything Christ taught. I have already responded to this kind of thing throughout the thread.

I post the facts, and you dismiss them.

You post accusations based upon suppositions and claims. Not evidence. Not facts. I deny those accusations, for the many reasons stated throughout this (and other) threads. Including the FACT that Christ is written to have rebuked His disciples when they wanted to call down fire upon some people. He rebuked them and told them that they know not what spirit they were of. Yet you claim that Christ inspired people being burned at the stake. Absolutely NOT. The evidence shows the OPPOSITE. And when Peter harmed the servant of the man that came to arrest Him, Christ again REBUKED Peter, and healed the man who had been harmed.

There is much much more, but it has already been stated throughout the thread.

I'm not going to waste my time with that kind of nonsense.

I consider your accusations and claims and suppositions to be nonsense, but I still tried. Not specifically (or just) for your sake, but for the sake of the reader as well.

People who really love others don't deny the horrific harm done to others and the reasons that harm was done.

Where have I denied the harm done to others? Just because I do not accept your 'reasons' for that harm, does not mean that I do not acknowledge that harm. I mean, you blame that harm on someone you are not even sure existed (and despite all the evidence of His teachings and actions - real or not - that show and command the exact opposite treatment of even one's enemies). Yet I am the one in denial? I think not.

I truly care about people, and I do so not because of Christ but because I learned just how evil he really is.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary. You believe what you want to believe. But your position is contrary to the evidence that we have. Your position is also inconsistent. I mean, if you are shown to be wrong on something you state about Christ (as has occurred in this thread), you simply wriggle away from that error, and pull a new reason out of a hat to consider Him to be at fault. That demonstrates bias, and that no matter what evidence is given to you which shows Christ loved others (taught us the same), even His enemies, you will twist it into something bad.

You, by contrast, just accept all the death and destruction as mere collateral damage. You just ignore and dismiss it. What's all that matter when you can have a really cool myth to enjoy?

I have neither ignored or dismissed any death or destruction, as my first (and subsequent) posts on this thread (and others) demonstrate. And I do not have a 'cool myth to enjoy'. You are the one who cannot make up your mind whether you are arguing against a myth or an actual person.



Peace still to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

You post accusations based upon suppositions and claims. Not evidence. Not facts. I deny those accusations, for the many reasons stated throughout this (and other) threads. Including the FACT that Christ is written to have rebuked His disciples when they wanted to call down fire upon some people. He rebuked them and told them that they know not what spirit they were of. Yet you claim that Christ inspired people being burned at the stake. Absolutely NOT.

Perhaps not, but if not only because Jesus wanted to do the job himself:

Matthew 13:40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This is of course not the only time Jesus threatened punishment with fire in the Gospels. It's not surprising his followers would be inspired to use fire to punish those they considered evildoers.


Tcg