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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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:

Certainly not.

No one is denying the eventual judgment, but even according to the parable that you post as an example, that judgment does not come by man (and certainly not before the end of the age).

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

His followers?


"Do not judge, and you will not be judged."

"Do not condemn and you will not be condemned."


Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.

"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.



HIS disciples obey HIS commands. No one burning anyone at the stake was following His commands. No one stealing children from their families and placing them in residential schools (where they were abused in every possible way) was following His commands.

Remember, He said that many would call Him "Lord" and claim to have done many things in His name, and yet He would say to them,

'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Matt 7:23



(And there is a difference between a warning and a threat. Christ warned what would come upon some at the end of the age, and at the eventual judgment/resurrection of the dead, but He also provided those same people a way to receive life.)




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

[Tcg]

No one is denying the eventual judgment, but even according to the parable that you post as an example, that judgment does not come by man (and certainly not before the end of the age).

It comes at the hand of Jesus who is the example for all Christians. The fact that some jumped the gun is a minor issue.

(And there is a difference between a warning and a threat. Christ warned what would come upon some at the end of the age, and at the eventual judgment/resurrection of the dead, but He also provided those same people a way to receive life.)

I pointed out the fact that the Jesus character from the Gospels threatened people with the punishment of fire. It should come as no surprise then that some of his followers would carry Jesus' threat to it's logical conclusion.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

No one is denying the eventual judgment, but even according to the parable that you post as an example, that judgment does not come by man (and certainly not before the end of the age).

It comes at the hand of Jesus who is the example for all Christians. The fact that some jumped the gun is a minor issue.

The fact that some disobey the direct commands of Christ is not a minor issue. See previous post (including His own words on the matter).

(And there is a difference between a warning and a threat. Christ warned what would come upon some at the end of the age, and at the eventual judgment/resurrection of the dead, but He also provided those same people a way to receive life.)

I pointed out the fact that the Jesus character from the Gospels threatened people with the punishment of fire. It should come as no surprise then that some of his followers would carry Jesus' threat to it's logical conclusion.

There is nothing new in the above statement, so I can only refer back to my previous response.


Peace again to you.

[brunumb]

(And there is a difference between a warning and a threat. Christ warned what would come upon some at the end of the age, and at the eventual judgment/resurrection of the dead, but He also provided those same people a way to receive life.)

Sounds just like the kind of threat disguised as a warning that you get with a protection racket. Pay us your monthly dues and we will make sure that no one burns down your business. In both cases we know exactly who is responsible for the flames.

[unknown soldier]

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.

The Christ figure obviously had a sick obsession with burning people. It should come as no surprise that his followers have followed his lead. The Inquisitors referred to their burning people as the auto-da-f which is Spanish for "act of faith (in Christ)." Some of the Inquisitors said they burned people in the auto-da-f to glorify Christ. The rationale for this act of faith in Christ was that it was a preview of the hell that Christ preached for condemned sinners. If they were to burn forever in Christ's hell, then why not get around to Christ's business right here on earth?

Here's a depiction of the Inquisition nailing their victims to wooden stakes. Note also the crosses they placed upon their victims. Both are obvious allusions to Christ.

[tam]

Peace to you,

(And there is a difference between a warning and a threat. Christ warned what would come upon some at the end of the age, and at the eventual judgment/resurrection of the dead, but He also provided those same people a way to receive life.)

Sounds just like the kind of threat disguised as a warning that you get with a protection racket. Pay us your monthly dues and we will make sure that no one burns down your business. In both cases we know exactly who is responsible for the flames.

No, it is more like, "if you commit murder, you will be imprisoned (or whatever the law accords)."


And consider the people who are 'devoured by fire from heaven' in Revelation. They aren't just sitting around minding their own business, trying to make a living, etc. They specifically march across the breadth of the earth, in order to attack the people God loves.


When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earthGog and Magogand to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of Gods people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Rev 20:7-9



And I know (much of) religion claims that anyone who is not Christian goes to 'hell' (or at the very least does not receive eternal life). But religion is wrong (on that and many other matters). Religion (including Christendom) is not from Christ. He did not come and start a new religion. The only religion that had was sanctioned by God was the Temple/Priesthood/Law given through Moses. But that was just until Christ came, and after Christ, the people were to worship in spirit and in truth.


I do not get how you guys know to reject the religion as false, but at the same time believe the claims that religion (which you know is false) makes about Christ, about God. How does that make sense?



Peace again to you.

[Tcg]

I do not get how you guys know to reject the religion as false, but at the same time believe the claims that religion (which you know is false) makes about Christ, about God. How does that make sense?

I for one don't believe all the claims the Bible makes about Jesus and God. When I address these two I am referring to how they are presented in the Bible.

It's similar to people discussing Tom Sawyer. If I were to refer to Tom conning his friends into whitewashing Aunt Poly's fence for him I'd be discussing the character Mark Twain created. I obviously am not referring to Tom as if he actually existed. If one were to claim that Tom paid his friends to do this work, I'd correct this error and point out that Tom made them give him something before he allowed them to experience the joy of painting a fence.

It's similar with the Bible. When someone misrepresents Jesus, I'll point out verses that reveal an error. For instance, when I point out how Jesus threatened people with fire, it's not as if a believe there will come a time when Jesus will actually burn people. I'm simply discussing the story line as presented by the particular author.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

I do not get how you guys know to reject the religion as false, but at the same time believe the claims that religion (which you know is false) makes about Christ, about God. How does that make sense?

I for one don't believe all the claims the Bible makes about Jesus and God. When I address these two I am referring to how they are presented in the Bible.

Yes, I understand that about you (in as much as I can recall), even if I may not agree with how you see something as being presented in the Bible.


Point of clarification though: I said claims that religion makes about Christ and God. In my experience, many people 'see' (and so interpret) the bible through whatever lens their religion has given them (regardless of whether they are still members of that religion). A Catholic (or ex-catholic) often sees the bible through catholic glasses. A JW (or ex-jw) often sees the bible through jw glasses. And so on. I don't get that (from former members). I don't get why some people still believe the interpretations and teachings of their former religion, while at the same time acknowledging that their former religion is false (and had no special insight).



Peace again to you.

[Tcg]

Point of clarification though: I said claims that religion makes about Christ and God. In my experience, many people 'see' (and so interpret) the bible through whatever lens their religion has given them (regardless of whether they are still members of that religion). A Catholic (or ex-catholic) often sees the bible through catholic glasses. A JW (or ex-jw) often sees the bible through jw glasses. And so on. I don't get that (from former members). I don't get why some people still believe the interpretations and teachings of their former religion, while at the same time acknowledging that their former religion is false (and had no special insight).

I wouldn't think that those who have left a branch of Christianity, which is what you have presented here, would "still believe the interpretations and teachings of their former religion." It shouldn't be surprising that they may for awhile still view passages in the same manner their former branch of Christianity did. If they remain interested in the Bible and Christianity, this will likely change over time.

As far as most of what has been discussed in this thread, I don't see any need for any special interpretation. In some cases the Bible is quite clear. The only time interpretation is needed in this case is when one doesn't like the implications of that clear teaching and a method of ignoring those implications must be developed.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Tcg in post #130]

As far as most of what has been discussed in this thread, I don't see any need for any special interpretation. In some cases the Bible is quite clear. The only time interpretation is needed in this case is when one doesn't like the implications of that clear teaching and a method of ignoring those implications must be developed.

Indeed. In that light, there are two things I would add to my previous post (dealing with the idea that people were inspired to 'burn people at the stake' because there is a Judge and a coming judgment), in addition to what has already been stated.

1 - We have judges and judgments (sentences; legal consequences for committing crimes). We know that the penalty for murder is incarceration (or possibly execution, depending upon the law of the land). Does knowing this inspire people to take the law into their own hands? Is it responsible for someone deciding to play both judge and 'executioner'? Why the double standard?

2 - We have a clear case of a woman being caught in adultery, and a crowd wanting to stone her as per Moses, being brought to Christ. Christ a) showed her mercy and forgiveness; even saved her life (in every sense), and b) told the crowd, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. He could have cast the first stone, but did not. He did not judge (meaning, condemn) the adulteress and He left no one else any room to judge (condemn) her either.

We (who are His disciples) are to follow His example and His command.

"Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

So add the above to the rest of His commands about not judging, not condemning, about showing mercy, about forgiving... including His rebuke to those who wanted to do (or did) harm to His enemies.





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