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 don’t 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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #38]

Where does the Bible say "Thou shall not keep slaves" or that slavery is morally wrong?

How can you declare slavery wrong? What are you basing your decision on?

I can point to the fact that all men were created in the image of God and as such, they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

Am I correct in assuming that because the Bible sanctioned slavery you do not think slavery is morally wrong?

Also, you cannot point to the fact that all men were created in the image of God. All you can do is repeat that as an unsupported claim.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to brunumb in post #39]

Throughout history all we have is alleged intermediaries telling us who God wants to have killed and then people are left to do the dirty work for him. Take God out of the picture and nothing really changes. We also have to ask the question "what is moral about God killing people" anyway? It seems that humans have made this judgment as well.

This is why God wrote down what His law is and we know that He will be consistent with the judgment and the carrying out of His judgments on men.

No. What we have are people claiming to speak and write for God and using that to wield their authority over others. God isn't involved at all. People kill other people and use God to sanction their evil actions.

But you just said the evil warlord God killed all of the firstborn of Egypt. Did Jehovah or the Jewish slaves in Egypt do the killing of the firstborn?

[unknown soldier]

You are saying that people that don't believe what you believe are ignorant.

I don't think that those who disagree with me are ignorant. I think that people who don't know what they are talking about are ignorant. Like it or not, many Christians including some of the apologists in this forum are very ignorant of their own Bible.

Then you mention the topical hysteria of the aforementioned US population. To what end?

What is "topical hysteria"? I just pointed out that the Christian-induced paranoia and ignorance in America is harmful to our nation.

That is misrepresenting quasi science based upon popular consensus and incomplete data. So called science minded atheist fundamentalists always do that to justify what they believe while claiming they don't believe anything. They have facts! Science is just a crutch for them. It creates the illusion of intellectual superiority not unlike how apologists use with an illusion of moral superiority. Both of them are painfully obvious stupid. It's a joke that anyone that will think for themselves sees through. All two or three hundred of us in the US population.

While I agree that some atheists may overdo it a bit when lauding science, I personally make sure to recognize science's limitations and imperfections. But warts and all science is the best knowledge and method of discovery we have. It's frightening to see how people will reject science when they feel it conflicts with their religion. Those same people are quick to enjoy the fruits of science while they deride it!

I'm gay. I don't care what Christians think of me, why should you?

I'm OK with you being gay. Since I'm an atheist, I have no reason to hate homosexuals.

Of course, all you are really doing is the same thing Christians do. It's just another side of the coin. Funny how you don't realize that.

What am I doing that Christians do?

I especially don't think a certain way because many people think that way.

I don't feel any compulsion to go along with the crowd either. I prefer to think for myself.

The science of evolution is not a moral basis, however, and I would be the first to object to any morality based on survival of the fittest.

I don't believe that. In fact I think that is exactly what you are doing. You just aren't self aware enough to pick up on it.

Actually, I object to social Darwinism all the time. I think it's wrong to marginalize the disabled and abuse kids, for example. So I just proved you wrong by demonstrating that I do in fact object to morality based on survival of the fittest.

Typical atheist fundamentalist response. They don't like the morals of a mythological god being imposed upon them but they teach their children that if they aren't good Santa won't bring them toys.

Who teaches kids that?

It would be much easier for him to just let them destroy each other. What's wrong with that?

I don't like it when people destroy each other, and you would too if you were one of the people being destroyed.

I don't think it would work. One bad apple. What would be the point in not slaughtering them?

I have a limit to what crazy questions I will answer, and you just reached that limit with this question.

Dave, if you're serious about what you're posting, then I advise you to get help.

[DavidLeon]

I don't think that those who disagree with me are ignorant. I think that people who don't know what they are talking about are ignorant. Like it or not, many Christians including some of the apologists in this forum are very ignorant of their own Bible.

Well, I'm not a great admirer of Christians in general but I haven't noticed that with anyone here, believer or unbeliever. There's a difference between being ignorant and being misinformed, or in disagreement with, I would say. I've known some people, good online friends of mine who I disagreed completely with but had mutual admiration for their knowledge of The Bible. Both atheist and even, much to my surprise, Catholic.

What is "topical hysteria"? I just pointed out that the Christian-induced paranoia and ignorance in America is harmful to our nation.

By topical hysteria I mean misusing current events to frighten or shame people into agreeing with one's ideology because to use reason or sound judgment wouldn't be as effective. Like fundamentalist Christians using AIDS against homosexuality or atheists using Covid-19 to make their point. Using the ignorance and hysteria of a group of people to manipulate them into buying your b... nonsense.

That is misrepresenting quasi science based upon popular consensus and incomplete data. So called science minded atheist fundamentalists always do that to justify what they believe while claiming they don't believe anything. They have facts! Science is just a crutch for them. It creates the illusion of intellectual superiority not unlike how apologists use with an illusion of moral superiority. Both of them are painfully obvious stupid. It's a joke that anyone that will think for themselves sees through. All two or three hundred of us in the US population.

While I agree that some atheists may overdo it a bit when lauding science, I personally make sure to recognize science's limitations and imperfections. But warts and all science is the best knowledge and method of discovery we have. It's frightening to see how people will reject science when they feel it conflicts with their religion. Those same people are quick to enjoy the fruits of science while they deride it!

Yeah. Like that. Oh, wait a minute. I thought we were still talking about using ignorance and hysteria to manipulate, shame or frighten people as an agenda. You were being serious.

I don't know how to cook. I don't like to cook, but I love to eat. In a very short time I can have a recipe from online for baked Ziti and then cook it but I don't want to go to culinary school. There's nothing wrong with culinary school or going to culinary school but I have no interest in doing so. I don't need to school myself in that regard. I love cars. Show me a candy apple red convertible with white interior; 64 Ford Mustang or 66 Pontiac GTO or Chrysler Imperial, or any Rolls Royce and I'm like a kid in a candy store. But I have no interest in auto mechanics. The same with science. I think science is great, but that don't mean I have to subscribe to every scientific postulation put before me. Science bores me like culinary school or auto mechanics.

Similar with theology and philosophy. Most theology and philosophy seems patently absurd to me. Nonsense. Can't stand poetry. That doesn't mean I want to go to philosophy, science, theology, culinary, poetry or mechanics forums and tell the people who do have an interest in those things that they are ignorant in general and wasting their lives in discussing those subjects or owe some homage those fields for their glorious contributions to mankind. That would be narcissistic and stupid. Xenophobic and myopic. Religious.

What the fundamentalist atheist with a scientific agenda seems to do is try to logically force the theist, or more precisely the faithful; the believer, into accepting the proposition that science is infallible or again, more precisely conclusive in it's ability to disprove faith. That is stupid. Xenophobic and myopic. Dogmatic. A sort of narcissistic behavior. That is what I object to. Vehemently. Try and force me to abandon my beliefs in order to think like that and I don't have to think about it. It's a no brainer. It ain't happening.

I'm OK with you being gay. Since I'm an atheist, I have no reason to hate homosexuals.

If it weren't for those frequent jabs of illogic ideology you would be a pleasant conversationalist, soldier.

What am I doing that Christians do?

Pretty much everything. List everything you do in a 24 hour period or longer. A week. A month. And at the end of that period look at every item and ask yourself: does a Christian do that? Check the items off.

Actually, I object to social Darwinism all the time. I think it's wrong to marginalize the disabled and abuse kids, for example. So I just proved you wrong by demonstrating that I do in fact object to morality based on survival of the fittest.

Who doesn't? And yet . . .

Typical atheist fundamentalist response. They don't like the morals of a mythological god being imposed upon them but they teach their children that if they aren't good Santa won't bring them toys.

Who teaches kids that?

Most people. I had specifically referred to the typical atheist fundamentalist due to the hypocritical nature of it.

It would be much easier for him to just let them destroy each other. What's wrong with that?

I don't like it when people destroy each other, and you would too if you were one of the people being destroyed.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. I don't mind when people destroy each other. It's almost always either a mutual exchange or nearly impossible to escape tyrannical abuse. It seems more and more popular for people who make the most noise and get the most media attention to impose their ideology, no matter how seemingly well intended, but I think it is a gross misrepresentation of reality by the mainstream media. That propaganda is rubbing people the wrong way and that could be extremely harmful to society ... like a grass or forest fire it can be, in an unfortunate way beneficial. Sort of a variation of survival of the fittest. We sinful humans are insane.

If society teaches its children to be sacrificial war heroes who am I to get in the way? I'm not going to salute their funeral procession or be thankful to their war mongering, murder, rape and pillage, but I'm not going to protest it publicly either.

I don't think it would work. One bad apple. What would be the point in not slaughtering them?

I have a limit to what crazy questions I will answer, and you just reached that limit with this question.

Dave, if your serious about what you're posting, then I advise you to get help.

What an ideologically possessed response. Democratic, I wonder. If you object to God slaughtering the people that threaten his purpose for mankind to live forever in peace then you must have reasons for it. Asking what the point is to such a position is answered by not answering? This tells me that you would impose your own good intentions in a tyrannical fashion because there's no room for debating your personal beliefs.

I won't harm anyone for the benefit of my personal beliefs so I don't present myself as a pawn in that sort of game. Everyone who slaughters have good and wholesome reasons for it and those they are slaughtering probably have the same. That's their problem.

God slaughtering people is a different situation altogether.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #58]

Wait a minute. What law? The laws to Adam differed from the laws to Noah which differed from the laws to Moses and Israel which differed from the law of Christ to Christians.

What makes you think the law of God changed across the centuries?

How God has dealt with sin over the centuries has changed because before Christ died on the cross He did not write His law on their hearts like He does today.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #61]

Am I correct in assuming that because the Bible sanctioned slavery you do not think slavery is morally wrong?

Also, you cannot point to the fact that all men were created in the image of God. All you can do is repeat that as an unsupported claim.

What I am saying is that you have not a basis for calling slavery wrong? Why are you calling slavery wrong? Slavery was around for thousands of fo years because it was logical. So why are you saying it is wrong/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #60]

No. What we have are people claiming to speak and write for God and using that to wield their authority over others. God isn't involved at all. People kill other people and use God to sanction their evil actions.

It is good to see that you do believe in some parts of the Bible or at least the parts that you want to believe are true. People also rid most of the world of slavery because of the teaching in the Bible that all men are created in the image of God. Western civilization is built on that very principle. The golden rule that many like to quote as their morality is a Biblical thought. So when people say that they believe that they should not do anything that would be damaging to someone else even their enemies that is a Biblical principle.

In fact, the civility of the west comes from Biblical values.

What do you base your morality on if it is not the Bible?

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #58]
What makes you think the law of God changed across the centuries?

Well, because circumstances change. For example, Adam and Eve and then Noah were told to multiply and fill the earth. No such mandate was needed with Christianity or now. It's done.

How God has dealt with sin over the centuries has changed because before Christ died on the cross He did not write His law on their hearts like He does today.

I see. Why wouldn't he have written it on their hearts from creation and how could there be sin if he hadn't? You can't break a law if it isn't written.

[Tcg]

In fact, the civility of the west comes from Biblical values.

Of course it does:

American Indian boarding schools

Children were typically immersed in European-American culture through forced changes that removed indigenous cultural signifiers. These methods included being forced to have European-American style haircuts, being forbidden to speak their Indigenous languages, and having their real names replaced by European names to both "civilize" and "Christianize" them. The experience of the schools was usually harsh and sometimes deadly, especially for the younger children who were forcibly separated from their families. The children were forced to abandon their Native American identities and cultures. Investigations of the later twentieth century have revealed many documented cases of sexual, manual, physical and mental abuse occurring mostly in church-run schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ng_schools

Tcg

[unknown soldier]

By topical hysteria I mean misusing current events...

I don't misuse the news.

...to frighten or shame people into agreeing with one's ideology...

Sometimes people should be frightened or ashamed. They should fear deadly diseases and should be ashamed of the systematic coverup of sexual assault in groups they belong to.

...because to use reason or sound judgment wouldn't be as effective.

I use reason and sound judgment. I am doing so right now.

I think science is great, but that don't mean I have to subscribe to every scientific postulation put before me.

Who said that?

What the fundamentalist atheist with a scientific agenda seems to do is try to logically force the theist, or more precisely the faithful; the believer, into accepting the proposition that science is infallible or again, more precisely conclusive in it's ability to disprove faith.

Who's doing that?

That is stupid. Xenophobic and myopic. Dogmatic. A sort of narcissistic behavior. That is what I object to. Vehemently.

Didn't you just get done criticizing "fundamentalist atheists" for objecting to other people's point of view?

If it weren't for those frequent jabs of illogic ideology you would be a pleasant conversationalist, soldier.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment.

What am I doing that Christians do?

Pretty much everything. List everything you do in a 24 hour period or longer. A week. A month. And at the end of that period look at every item and ask yourself: does a Christian do that? Check the items off.

Let's see...

We both eat. Check
We both sleep. Check
We both look at porn. Check

I had specifically referred to the typical atheist fundamentalist due to the hypocritical nature of it.

Can you post an example of a fundamentalist atheist who teaches her kids about Santa?

...you would impose your own good intentions in a tyrannical fashion because there's no room for debating your personal beliefs.

You haven't noticed that I debate?

It's a riddle as to why people would go into a forum entitled "Debating Christianity" only to gripe about those who debate Christianity in that forum. Were you hoping to preach to the choir?