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.

[unknown soldier]

As far as I understand, there is no actual "penalty" (from Christ, from God) for lacking belief either...

The Bible speaks otherwise. Mark 16:16 (NBRSV):

The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

[Tcg]

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

Let's show the differences in Paul's teachings compared to those claimed to have come from Jesus.

Paul's teachings:
1st Cor 5:7 - For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Eph 5:2 - And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Jesus's teachings:
Matt 9:13 - Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'.

It's as if Paul never met the man!

Let's look at how we get to heaven and compare Jesus to Paul.

Paul's teachings:
Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Jesus's teachings:
Matt 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Paul claims you need the sacrifice of Jesus while Jesus tells us that we will be justified and/or condemned by our words.
I truly wonder how much of Paul's Christianity Jesus would recognize or even agree with?

Not only does Paul disagree, Gospel John's Jesus disagrees with the Jesus of the synoptics. Gospel John's Jesus claims it is a matter of belief. The synoptic Jesus preaches works.

One thing they both have in common is that they speak of love, but then relish the idea of punishing those who rejected him. It's quite a confused message and it is no surprise that Jesus' true attitude towards his enemies inspires hatred.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

02-DEC 2020
viewtopic.php?p=1025888#p1025888

Let's look at how we get to heaven and compare Jesus to Paul.

Paul's teachings:
Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Jesus's teachings:
Matt 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Paul claims you need the sacrifice of Jesus while Jesus tells us that we will be justified and/or condemned by our words.

29-JUN 2018
viewtopic.php?p=923107#p923107

Rom 3:24 + 28 Paul says: they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,… [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom 5:9 Paul says: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Matt 12:37 Jesus says: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

More of Paul making this about the sacrifice if Jesus. Jesus on the other hand claims that we will be justified by our words.

This point was addressed by me when you originally made it back in 2018. Your premise is faulty (see LINK for details )
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p419968


NOTE It appears your original ideas come from a 2006 webpage.
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html



JW

I'm quoting Bible verses.
You may not like what they say or may feel like you need to try to appologetic them away, but the words are there for anyone to read. I did not put those words in the book, but there they are.

[tam]

Peace to you,

You post accusations based upon suppositions and claims. Not evidence. Not facts.

I assume that you think you have posted good evidence that supports your position that Christ was a good and loving man. It would be very helpful if you explained in what way your posts have made your case and why my posts have failed to make my case that Christ was not a good and loving man. In particular, in what way are your posts not mere suppositions and claims, and how is what you say factual while what I say is not factual?

I'm sorry, unknown soldier, but responding to these questions would just be a repetition of things stated in this thread. For a response, I (respectfully) suggest that you simply re-read my responses to your posts in this thread.

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.

You are correct that the Christ story quotes Christ as rebuking his disciples for that reason. (Luke 9:51-56) Does it then follow that nothing he said could have inspired the Inquisition to burn heretics? Note that James and John asked Christ if they should call fire down from heaven to consume a Samaritan village! They evidently believed he might give them the green light to do so, and it's very possible that they got the whole idea of using fire to destroy those who rejected them from Christ.

And yet, He rebuked them for this. It is for this reason (and many others - including the command to bless those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, etc, etc) that we can know that Christ did not give them the 'green light'. He explicitly gave them the 'red light'. On top of that, the most He instructed His disciples to do if a town and people rejected them, was to leave that town and shake the dust off their feet in protest against them. Granted, one can always choose to be merciful ("I desire mercy, not sacrifice"; see also Matt 23:23 for what constitutes the most important matters of the law).

But anything more than the above things is adding to word and commands of Christ, even going against the word and commands of Christ.

So no, no one was inspired by Christ to burn people at the stake. The people who did that did not know Christ (the Spirit), and certainly did not obey Him.

All you need to do is read Luke 17:28-30 to see that Christ did in fact believe that he would eventually use fire from the sky to burn those who rejected him.

This is not the context of Luke 17. Read the preceding verse about Noah and the flood, and see if you can get the context from that.

...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.

At that time Christ was determined to get himself executed, so Christ had to rebuke Peter for interfering. His rebuking Peter then had nothing to do with love or compassion.

This was responded to earlier in the thread, according to what I received from my Lord (the Spirit):

Christ rebuked the act that caused harm, and healed the servant. And as the Spirit has just reminded me, He did not have to heal the servant in order for the arrest to proceed.

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.

Yes, despite the evidence that Christ was not evil, I nevertheless conclude that he was evil. I consider the evidence for both sides of the issue and place that evidence on the scales of justice. Whatever side the scales fall to, I conclude.

You admit that there is evidence against your position, and that your position is biased (at least in some ways). Should that not give you pause about the conclusions you are drawing and the accusations you are making?




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

[unknown soldier]

... in what way are your posts not mere suppositions and claims, and how is what you say factual while what I say is not factual?

I'm sorry, unknown soldier, but responding to these questions would just be a repetition of things stated in this thread. For a response, I (respectfully) suggest that you simply re-read my responses to your posts in this thread.

In that case I must conclude that your posts are no better than mine because I have already rebutted your arguments.

You are correct that the Christ story quotes Christ as rebuking his disciples for that reason. (Luke 9:51-56) Does it then follow that nothing he said could have inspired the Inquisition to burn heretics? Note that James and John asked Christ if they should call fire down from heaven to consume a Samaritan village! They evidently believed he might give them the green light to do so, and it's very possible that they got the whole idea of using fire to destroy those who rejected them from Christ.

And yet, He rebuked them for this.

Yes, Christ is quoted as rebuking James and John in one instance of their asking him to burn a particular village of people for rejecting Christ.

It is for this reason (and many others - including the command to bless those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, etc, etc) that we can know that Christ did not give them the 'green light'. He explicitly gave them the 'red light'.

In some instances Christ told his followers to refrain from violence. You are correct there.

On top of that, the most He instructed His disciples to do if a town and people rejected them, was to leave that town and shake the dust off their feet in protest against them.

And what was the fate of those towns that rejected Christ's advances on them? For their simply wanting to be left alone? We get a hint in Matthew 11 (NRSV):

21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you.

So here we have Christ pronouncing woe on entire communities for their rejecting him despite his "deeds of power." Do I really need to argue that Christ's followers did not pick up on all that seeing Christ's perceived enemies as worthy of destruction?

So no, no one was inspired by Christ to burn people at the stake.

But we've already seen that two of Christ's closest followers, James and John, were ready to go to burn a village full of men, women, and children in his honor! If people then were already inspired by Christ to commit acts of violence for him, then what would keep people centuries later from burning people at the stake for him?

The people who did that did not know Christ (the Spirit), and certainly did not obey Him.

James and John knew Christ, did they not? Did they not follow him closely listening to everything he preached? Yes they did (if we can believe the gospels). They got the idea of burning people from Christ, of course. Where else would they have gotten the idea?

All you need to do is read Luke 17:28-30 to see that Christ did in fact believe that he would eventually use fire from the sky to burn those who rejected him.

This is not the context of Luke 17. Read the preceding verse about Noah and the flood, and see if you can get the context from that.

OK, let's do that. Luke 17:

27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30 —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

So what's your point? The previous verse (verse 27) tells us how innocent people going about their own business were drowned by Christ's God. Christ obviously approved of it. That's hardly good evidence for a loving Christ who never inspired violence! The fact is that Christ is depicted as approving of killing people both by drowning as well as burning. You honestly can't see how that kind of crazy talk cannot inspire people to violence?

At that time Christ was determined to get himself executed, so Christ had to rebuke Peter for interfering. His rebuking Peter then had nothing to do with love or compassion.

This was responded to earlier in the thread, according to what I received from my Lord (the Spirit):

So we see the source of your truth. A spirit.

Christ rebuked the act that caused harm, and healed the servant. And as the Spirit has just reminded me, He did not have to heal the servant in order for the arrest to proceed.

Maybe, but what of rebuking Peter? If Peter had kept swinging his sword at those arresting Christ, then I think that would have hobbled their efforts to arrest Christ.

Oh--and please note Peter's using violence against Christ's enemies. Peter like James and John was reputedly one of Christ's closest followers. Like the other apostles Peter heard everything Christ preached. Why, then, did Peter act with such fury and deadly violence when he saw his leader being arrested? So far we have three examples of Christ's followers inspired to violence for him. Why, then, do you deny others inspired to violence for Christ?

You admit that there is evidence against your position, and that your position is biased (at least in some ways).

That is correct. There is evidence against almost any position and everybody is biased. I'm just honest and sensible enough to admit my bias and recognize evidence against my position.

Should that not give you pause about the conclusions you are drawing and the accusations you are making?

Yes. Of course. I'm a fallible human being who can be wrong. My recognizing this fact actually helps me to get things right because I can spot my errors and correct them. If I thought I could not be wrong, then I'd keep making the same errors.

Let me conclude this post by pointing out what may be your biggest mistake in your reasoning. You seem to think that if in some cases Christ commanded love or rebuked violence, then nobody could ever be inspired to violence by what he said. That kind of logic is obviously invalid because Christ said a lot that could have inspired violence. I have documented several cases of just that kind of "inspired violence" from the very beginning on the part of his closest disciples.

Tam, you really need to give this up. The more you deny Christ's violent message, the more we see it for what it is.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

You are correct that the Christ story quotes Christ as rebuking his disciples for that reason. (Luke 9:51-56) Does it then follow that nothing he said could have inspired the Inquisition to burn heretics? Note that James and John asked Christ if they should call fire down from heaven to consume a Samaritan village! They evidently believed he might give them the green light to do so, and it's very possible that they got the whole idea of using fire to destroy those who rejected them from Christ.

And yet, He rebuked them for this.

Yes, Christ is quoted as rebuking James and John in one instance of their asking him to burn a particular village of people for rejecting Christ.

Not just "in one instance". In the ONLY instance. There are NO instances of Christ giving His disciples permission to burn a village (or a person), for rejecting Him (or them). Just the opposite in fact.

This is why I say that your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, with no actual evidence to back it up.

It is for this reason (and many others - including the command to bless those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, etc, etc) that we can know that Christ did not give them the 'green light'. He explicitly gave them the 'red light'.

In some instances Christ told his followers to refrain from violence. You are correct there.

In what instances did Christ tell His followers to DO violence?

On top of that, the most He instructed His disciples to do if a town and people rejected them, was to leave that town and shake the dust off their feet in protest against them.

And what was the fate of those towns that rejected Christ's advances on them? For their simply wanting to be left alone? We get a hint in Matthew 11 (NRSV):

21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you.

Please note the words 'on the day of judgment'.

If someone commits murder, we the people have no right to go and enact our personal brand of justice upon them, do we? They receive a trial, with a judge and/or jury, and the judge determines their sentence. I assume you can understand that, so why can you not understand the same when it comes to the day of Judgment that Christ speaks of, when people are judged by God (the Judge) according to their words and deeds?

So no, no one was inspired by Christ to burn people at the stake.

But we've already seen that two of Christ's closest followers, James and John, were ready to go to burn a village full of men, women, and children in his honor! If people then were already inspired by Christ to commit acts of violence for him, then what would keep people centuries later from burning people at the stake for him?

One:

You do not seem to understand what it means that Christ is the Teacher, and the disciples were students. Do you not recall where it is written that Christ said, "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..."

They all had learnings and baggage from their previous 'teachers of the law' (just as anyone who has been in a religion has leftover baggage from the erroneous teachings in that religion), including errors from those teachers and from the scribes who had handled the law falsely.

From the prophet Jeremiah:

"How can you say, "we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD]', when actually the LYING PEN OF THE SCRIBES has handled it FALSELY."

Christ came to bear witness to the Truth, and He taught people what God truly desired. The disciples were being taught, they were being refined, they were learning PEACE.

"Blessed are the peacemakers..."
"Blessed are the merciful..."
"Blessed are the meek..."


Two:

A disciple of Christ has had these words and these lessons in front of them already, to have already learned from this, and from the mistakes that the apostles - who were LEARNING - made. Certainly the people who claim to have 'taken the lead' in "Christianity" have these things in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if one is indeed a sheep of Christ, then that one listens to His voice. If they WERE listening to His voice, they could not have burned people at the stake, or executed them in any way, or persecuted and tortured them, etc. Because these go against His commands and against the law (which law is love).

The people who did that did not know Christ (the Spirit), and certainly did not obey Him.

James and John knew Christ, did they not? Did they not follow him closely listening to everything he preached? Yes they did (if we can believe the gospels). They got the idea of burning people from Christ, of course. Where else would they have gotten the idea?

From some of their ancestors. From the teachers of the law and the scribes who handled the law falsely. Did these things not occur to you?

Not to mention the fact that there were some laws given - not because they were true - but because the hearts of Israel were too hard to hear the truth. Such as the law on divorce. If they had already known the truth, why would Christ have come to lead them into all truth, to bear witness to the truth, to teach them all things, to correct them (and the teachers of the law)?

27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30 —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

So what's your point? The previous verse (verse 27) tells us how innocent people going about their own business were drowned by Christ's God. Christ obviously approved of it. That's hardly good evidence for a loving Christ who never inspired violence! The fact is that Christ is depicted as approving of killing people both by drowning as well as burning. You honestly can't see how that kind of crazy talk cannot inspire people to violence?

The verse says nothing about innocent people; only about people going about their business, unaware (well not unaware in the case of the flood at least, because they were warned, but unbelieving) that the things God said were going to pass, actually came to pass.

At that time Christ was determined to get himself executed, so Christ had to rebuke Peter for interfering. His rebuking Peter then had nothing to do with love or compassion.

This was responded to earlier in the thread, according to what I received from my Lord (the Spirit):

So we see the source of your truth. A spirit.

The Spirit: Christ Jaheshua. This is not a secret, I have been very clear on that from the moment I joined this forum several years ago.

Christ rebuked the act that caused harm, and healed the servant. And as the Spirit has just reminded me, He did not have to heal the servant in order for the arrest to proceed.

Maybe,

There is no maybe about it.

but what of rebuking Peter? If Peter had kept swinging his sword at those arresting Christ, then I think that would have hobbled their efforts to arrest Christ.

It may have, but you continue to overlook the point that Christ healed the person harmed.

Oh--and please note Peter's using violence against Christ's enemies. Peter like James and John was reputedly one of Christ's closest followers. Like the other apostles Peter heard everything Christ preached. Why, then, did Peter act with such fury and deadly violence when he saw his leader being arrested? So far we have three examples of Christ's followers inspired to violence for him. Why, then, do you deny others inspired to violence for Christ?

You have two examples of violence (or desire for violence) from three people. And in each case, Christ rebuked said violence (or desire for violence).

You admit that there is evidence against your position, and that your position is biased (at least in some ways).

That is correct. There is evidence against almost any position and everybody is biased. I'm just honest and sensible enough to admit my bias and recognize evidence against my position.

Yet you roll on full steam ahead, impugning someone without knowing them, and fully knowing there is evidence against your position.





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

[unknown soldier]

Yes, Christ is quoted as rebuking James and John in one instance of their asking him to burn a particular village of people for rejecting Christ.

Not just "in one instance". In the ONLY instance.

How do you know that the apostles didn't want to do violence to unbelievers on other occasions?

There are NO instances of Christ giving His disciples permission to burn a village (or a person), for rejecting Him (or them).

We don't really know what Christ may have been telling his apostles behind the scenes. We do know that the gospels portray the apostles in some cases as violent or potentially violent men wanting to inflict or actually inflicting deadly violence on Christ's perceived enemies. How can you explain their behavior if Christ taught them love and peace?

This is why I say that your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, with no actual evidence to back it up.

So my quoting the Bible doesn't qualify as evidence? Why then, does your quoting the Bible qualify as evidence?

In what instances did Christ tell His followers to DO violence?

We really don't know. The apostles got their violence from somebody, and if Christ taught them peace, it didn't sink in.

Please note the words 'on the day of judgment'.

Yes, on the day of judgment (Matthew 11) Christ will do horrible things to entire communities of people because they were not impressed with his magic. No way could such talk inspire violence in people, ay Tam?

If someone commits murder, we the people have no right to go and enact our personal brand of justice upon them, do we?

Yes, we as a society punish those convicted of violating the law. We make the punishment fit the crime, however, and we never punish entire communities. As such we act against what Christ was quoted as saying he would do because we strive to be civilized.

They receive a trial, with a judge and/or jury, and the judge determines their sentence. I assume you can understand that, so why can you not understand the same when it comes to the day of Judgment that Christ speaks of, when people are judged by God (the Judge) according to their words and deeds?

I see that you concede Christ's deadly violence. In any case, like I posted above, we do not punish people for what they believe like Christ said he would. We have gone beyond that kind of barbarism.

They all had learnings and baggage from their previous 'teachers of the law' (just as anyone who has been in a religion has leftover baggage from the erroneous teachings in that religion), including errors from those teachers and from the scribes who had handled the law falsely.

You have a point there. The apostles were no doubt influenced by Moses and the prophets like Elijah who had the priests of Baal butchered. I think it's unlikely, however, that Christ tried to tell them anything different. Christ, after all, lauded the barbaric Jewish law, and he no doubt glorified all the bloodshed in it when he spoke to his apostles.

If they WERE listening to His voice, they could not have burned people at the stake, or executed them in any way, or persecuted and tortured them, etc. Because these go against His commands and against the law (which law is love).

Those who burned people at the stake got the idea of burning people from Christ's dogmas about hell and Satan and demons and a wrathful God.

I am again repeating myself. Tam, you really need to educate yourself about the Inquisition.

If they had already known the truth, why would Christ have come to lead them into all truth, to bear witness to the truth, to teach them all things, to correct them (and the teachers of the law)?

Christ like most Jews of his day was putting his own spin on the Jewish scriptures. They all thought they had "the truth," so Christ was no different in that regard.

The verse says nothing about innocent people; only about people going about their business, unaware (well not unaware in the case of the flood at least, because they were warned, but unbelieving) that the things God said were going to pass, actually came to pass.

Based on what you believe about Christ's love, you condone the mass killing of men, women, and children merely because they literally "missed the boat." No wonder you think Christ's brand of love is so great. I see he has influenced you.

So we see the source of your truth. A spirit.

The Spirit: Christ Jaheshua. This is not a secret, I have been very clear on that from the moment I joined this forum several years ago.

Yes, we know Christ speaks to you. What does he say about me?

...but what of rebuking Peter? If Peter had kept swinging his sword at those arresting Christ, then I think that would have hobbled their efforts to arrest Christ.

It may have, but you continue to overlook the point that Christ healed the person harmed.

I did not overlook Christ's pasting the guy's ear back on after Peter slashed it off! I already told you that the healing was done so that the arrest may proceed. It would have been kind of hard to arrest Christ while a man was writhing in pain and bleeding all over the place.

Why, then, did Peter act with such fury and deadly violence when he saw his leader being arrested? So far we have three examples of Christ's followers inspired to violence for him. Why, then, do you deny others inspired to violence for Christ?

You have two examples of violence (or desire for violence) from three people. And in each case, Christ rebuked said violence (or desire for violence).

You're not answering my questions. Please answer them.

Yet you roll on full steam ahead, impugning someone without knowing them, and fully knowing there is evidence against your position.

Yes, I criticize people I don't know when I know there's evidence against my criticisms. There's just that evidence for my criticisms that I can't ignore.

[tam]

Peace again to you all,

Yes, Christ is quoted as rebuking James and John in one instance of their asking him to burn a particular village of people for rejecting Christ.

Not just "in one instance". In the ONLY instance.

How do you know that the apostles didn't want to do violence to unbelievers on other occasions?

And this is yet another example of how your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, but not evidence.

There are NO instances of Christ giving His disciples permission to burn a village (or a person), for rejecting Him (or them).

We don't really know what Christ may have been telling his apostles behind the scenes.

See above.

We do know that the gospels portray the apostles in some cases as violent or potentially violent men wanting to inflict or actually inflicting deadly violence on Christ's perceived enemies.

Each time rebuked. THAT is the evidence.

"Maybe something happened that we don't know about" is not evidence.

How can you explain their behavior if Christ taught them love and peace?

As already explained, they were in training. They were learning. That is what it means to be a student (a disciple).

This is why I say that your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, with no actual evidence to back it up.

So my quoting the Bible doesn't qualify as evidence?

Your 'maybe something happened that we don't know about'... is not a quote from the bible; nor is it evidence of any kind. It is supposition and conjecture, based upon... nothing. It is supposition and conjecture that contradicts the actual quotes and evidence we DO have, from the bible.

Why then, does your quoting the Bible qualify as evidence?

Because it actually is a quote from the bible. Supposition about what may or may not have happened behind the scenes - absent evidence (even contradicting the evidence we do have) is not 'quoting the bible'.

In what instances did Christ tell His followers to DO violence?

We really don't know.

Conjecture, supposition, no evidence, even contradicting the evidence that we do have.

Please note the words 'on the day of judgment'.

Yes, on the day of judgment (Matthew 11) Christ will do horrible things to entire communities of people because they were not impressed with his magic. No way could such talk inspire violence in people, ay Tam?

Have you never considered shame, embarrassment, regret, jealousy... to be the 'terrible things'? Perhaps specifically the shame, if you are at the judgment and Sodom and Gomorah are shown to be more righteous than you. Confronted with the truth of what a person has (or has not) done, having one's shame laid out for everyone to see... ?

In any case, what you seem to be overlooking is the fact that this occurs on the day of Judgment, and that God is the Judge, and that people are judged by God according to their words and their deeds. The fact that there is a Judge and a judgment in no way provides anyone permission to go ahead and enact vigilantism. Especially when the commands of Christ speak directly against doing such a thing.

If someone commits murder, we the people have no right to go and enact our personal brand of justice upon them, do we?

Yes, we as a society punish those convicted of violating the law.

Yes? Yes, we have the right to go out and enact our personal brand of justice upon someone? Vigilantism?

Did you misunderstand the point? Or did you just dodge that point because you 'got' it; and it refutes your position?

They receive a trial, with a judge and/or jury, and the judge determines their sentence. I assume you can understand that, so why can you not understand the same when it comes to the day of Judgment that Christ speaks of, when people are judged by God (the Judge) according to their words and deeds?

I see that you concede Christ's deadly violence. In any case, like I posted above, we do not punish people for what they believe like Christ said he would. We have gone beyond that kind of barbarism.

I concede no such thing, as pointed out above. I do see that you continue to dodge the point.

They all had learnings and baggage from their previous 'teachers of the law' (just as anyone who has been in a religion has leftover baggage from the erroneous teachings in that religion), including errors from those teachers and from the scribes who had handled the law falsely.

You have a point there. The apostles were no doubt influenced by Moses and the prophets like Elijah who had the priests of Baal butchered. I think it's unlikely, however, that Christ tried to tell them anything different. Christ, after all, lauded the barbaric Jewish law, and he no doubt glorified all the bloodshed in it when he spoke to his apostles.

So are you admitting that you do not know the gospels as well as you claim? You do not recall the instances where Christ said "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..." Or the times He explained that certain laws were given as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people? You do not recall Christ correcting the Pharisees and telling them to go and learn what it means that God desires mercy, not sacrifice? You do not recall that the prophet Jeremiah stated, "How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD]', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" You do not recall Christ ever saying 'woe to you scribes and teachers of the law'?

Etc.

If they WERE listening to His voice, they could not have burned people at the stake, or executed them in any way, or persecuted and tortured them, etc. Because these go against His commands and against the law (which law is love).

Those who burned people at the stake got the idea of burning people from Christ's dogmas about hell and Satan and demons and a wrathful God.

You keep saying this as if the so-called evidence that you are using to support your 'claim' has not been refuted or disputed.

I am again repeating myself. Tam, you really need to educate yourself about the Inquisition.

Perhaps you think I should take the word of people who have proven to be corrupt, who have proven to disobey the commands of Christ (or have proven to simply not care what He commanded to begin with)? Like you are doing, in taking their word? Because it just does not seem wise to me to accept the word of those who reveal themselves to be corrupt, to be liars, to be murderers, etc. Especially when those people acted in direct disobedience and conflict to the words and the commands of the One they claimed as their leader. Especially when Christ warned us about false christs (false anointed, false christians) and false prophets:

"Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

“See to it that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, and will deceive many."

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

If they had already known the truth, why would Christ have come to lead them into all truth, to bear witness to the truth, to teach them all things, to correct them (and the teachers of the law)?

Christ like most Jews of his day was putting his own spin on the Jewish scriptures. They all thought they had "the truth," so Christ was no different in that regard.

Did you miss the point again?

He corrected things that they had learned previously (incorrectly). Such as hating one's enemies.

...but what of rebuking Peter? If Peter had kept swinging his sword at those arresting Christ, then I think that would have hobbled their efforts to arrest Christ.

It may have, but you continue to overlook the point that Christ healed the person harmed.

I did not overlook Christ's pasting the guy's ear back on after Peter slashed it off! I already told you that the healing was done so that the arrest may proceed.

You did not tell me that. Nor does that make any sense at all. Why in the world would the injury of one man prevent the arrest of another man?

It would have been kind of hard to arrest Christ while a man was writhing in pain and bleeding all over the place.

How so? How exactly does the injury of one man (the servant of another man) prevent the soldiers present from arresting a different man?

I'm sure there is evidence aplenty in the world of arrests being carried out despite someone being injured, if you are somehow in doubt of that possibility. If your claim was true, I mean, that would be a FOOLPROOF way for anyone to get out of being arrested, right? Just fight back and injure someone and VOILA! The arrest is now too hard to be completed, and you get to go free.

Why, then, did Peter act with such fury and deadly violence when he saw his leader being arrested? So far we have three examples of Christ's followers inspired to violence for him. Why, then, do you deny others inspired to violence for Christ?

You have two examples of violence (or desire for violence) from three people. And in each case, Christ rebuked said violence (or desire for violence).

You're not answering my questions. Please answer them.

I answered them when you asked them at the start of your post. I did not see any reason that I should need to answer the same question twice in the exact same post.




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

[unknown soldier]

Peace again to you all...

Or at least peace until Judgment Day when Christ will knock the stuffing out of all of us unbelievers in his mercy and righteous judgment. He loves all of us so much!

How do you know that the apostles didn't want to do violence to unbelievers on other occasions?

And this is yet another example of how your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, but not evidence.

You dodged the question. The answer is that we don't know what the apostles did or wanted to do on other occasions, and we then must rely on "supposition" like you just did. It would be really stupid to conclude that the apostles were only violent when the gospel mentioned it. Christ had an entourage of men who had very violent tendencies.

We do know that the gospels portray the apostles in some cases as violent or potentially violent men wanting to inflict or actually inflicting deadly violence on Christ's perceived enemies.

Each time rebuked. THAT is the evidence.

If Christ was always rebuking the apostles for their having violent tendencies, then why were they so violent? Were they so stupid that years of presumably peace-loving talk from Christ had no effect on them?

"Maybe something happened that we don't know about" is not evidence.

It's basic common sense to recognize that men who acted violently or wanted to do violence on several occasions were not peace-loving men.

How can you explain their behavior if Christ taught them love and peace?

As already explained, they were in training. They were learning. That is what it means to be a student (a disciple).

Why is your speculating acceptable and my speculating is "not evidence"? Talk about a double standard! And why is your explanation for the violence of the apostles any better than my explanation? I say it's much more likely that the apostles were violent because they were inspired by Christ to be that way.

Your 'maybe something happened that we don't know about'... is not a quote from the bible; nor is it evidence of any kind. It is supposition and conjecture, based upon... nothing. It is supposition and conjecture that contradicts the actual quotes and evidence we DO have, from the bible.

Not only are you incorrect about what I argue here, but you do what you complain about here all the time.

Why then, does your quoting the Bible qualify as evidence?

Because it actually is a quote from the bible. Supposition about what may or may not have happened behind the scenes - absent evidence (even contradicting the evidence we do have) is not 'quoting the bible'.

Baloney! I quote the Bible all the time to back up what I say. In some cases, yes, I must speculate, but that's because the evidence for Christ and what he did is so scant in many ways. Please don't blame me for the weak evidence for Christ.

We really don't know.

Conjecture, supposition, no evidence, even contradicting the evidence that we do have.

I answered your question honestly and correctly. We do not know for the most part what Christ was telling his apostles about violence or anything else. That's a fact.

Have you never considered shame, embarrassment, regret, jealousy... to be the 'terrible things'?

They can be terrible, yes.

Perhaps specifically the shame, if you are at the judgment and Sodom and Gomorah are shown to be more righteous than you. Confronted with the truth of what a person has (or has not) done, having one's shame laid out for everyone to see... ?

You mean if I have a bladder-control problem, then Christ will lay out my Depends for all to see?

The fact that there is a Judge and a judgment in no way provides anyone permission to go ahead and enact vigilantism. Especially when the commands of Christ speak directly against doing such a thing.

Here's exactly where you're making a fallacy. You think wrongly that if people are not told to be violent, then they cannot be inspired to be violent. I'm not arguing that it's a sure bet that Christ told his followers to be violent. I'm saying that his violent delusions inspired at least some people to become violent.

You understand that, Tam?

I see that you concede Christ's deadly violence. In any case, like I posted above, we do not punish people for what they believe like Christ said he would. We have gone beyond that kind of barbarism.

I concede no such thing, as pointed out above.

You did concede Christ's deadly violence when you spoke of his "judgment."

So are you admitting that you do not know the gospels as well as you claim? You do not recall the instances where Christ said "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..." Or the times He explained that certain laws were given as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people? You do not recall Christ correcting the Pharisees and telling them to go and learn what it means that God desires mercy, not sacrifice? You do not recall that the prophet Jeremiah stated, "How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD]', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" You do not recall Christ ever saying 'woe to you scribes and teachers of the law'?

Yes, and I also know that Christ said he would "fulfill the law." (Matthew 5:17) The law he sought to fulfill was very violent.

Those who burned people at the stake got the idea of burning people from Christ's dogmas about hell and Satan and demons and a wrathful God.

You keep saying this as if the so-called evidence that you are using to support your 'claim' has not been refuted or disputed.

Just do some reading about the Inquisition and the witch hunters like I have done. You can also get educated about these Christ-influenced groups on YouTube. You will have all the facts you need to know that they were definitely inspired by the gospel story.

Because it just does not seem wise to me to accept the word of those who reveal themselves to be corrupt, to be liars, to be murderers, etc.

Oh sure. That's why I don't take your word that Christ talks to you.

It would have been kind of hard to arrest Christ while a man was writhing in pain and bleeding all over the place.

How so? How exactly does the injury of one man (the servant of another man) prevent the soldiers present from arresting a different man?

Maybe because they were busy trying to save the man's life not to mention save their own lives from the murderous Peter swinging his sword at them! You really can't figure that out?

I answered them when you asked them at the start of your post. I did not see any reason that I should need to answer the same question twice in the exact same post.

You didn't answer my questions. The answers are that Peter acted with deadly fury because he was inspired by Christ to do so. Many others have also been inspired by Christ to act violently towards those seen as Christ's enemies--just like Peter did as well as James and John.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

Peace again to you all...

Or at least peace until Judgment Day when Christ will knock the stuffing out of all of us unbelievers in his mercy and righteous judgment. He loves all of us so much!

I consider this to be nothing more than random ranting. It certainly has nothing to do with anything that I have said (or shared from my Lord) as part of this discussion.

How do you know that the apostles didn't want to do violence to unbelievers on other occasions?

And this is yet another example of how your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, but not evidence.

You dodged the question.

I dodged nothing.

I pointed out how lacking you are in evidence when you must assert imaginary possible scenarios (with no evidence to support them), as if imaginary possible scenarios are somehow able to overturn the actual evidence we DO have on hand. This is a ridiculous and unreasonable position to hold.

Following the actual evidence, I will repeat:

There are NO instances of Christ giving His disciples permission to burn a village (or a person), for rejecting Him (or them). Just the opposite in fact. This is why I say that your 'case' is based upon supposition and conjecture, with no actual evidence to back it up.

How can you explain their behavior if Christ taught them love and peace?

As already explained, they were in training. They were learning. That is what it means to be a student (a disciple).

Why is your speculating acceptable and my speculating is "not evidence"?

How is what I said speculation? Christ is the Teacher. The apostles and disciples are the students. This is what the evidence shows. We also have evidence (not speculation) that the apostles received training and instruction, even discipline, from Christ, the Teacher.

And why is your explanation for the violence of the apostles any better than my explanation?

Because your explanation is directly refuted by the evidence. You have to rely upon 'maybe something happened behind the scenes' to support your position. That is not evidence. That is not even reasonable speculation, since the evidence refutes it.

Your 'maybe something happened that we don't know about'... is not a quote from the bible; nor is it evidence of any kind. It is supposition and conjecture, based upon... nothing. It is supposition and conjecture that contradicts the actual quotes and evidence we DO have, from the bible.

Not only are you incorrect about what I argue here, but you do what you complain about here all the time.

He claims without any evidence to support his claim....

We really don't know.

Conjecture, supposition, no evidence, even contradicting the evidence that we do have.

I answered your question honestly and correctly. We do not know for the most part what Christ was telling his apostles about violence or anything else. That's a fact.

And yet you continue to assert something as if you do know, when the only evidence on hand refutes your position. What we do have on hand is that Christ rebuked His disciples if they committed (or desired to commit) violence.

Have you never considered shame, embarrassment, regret, jealousy... to be the 'terrible things'?

They can be terrible, yes.

Perhaps specifically the shame, if you are at the judgment and Sodom and Gomorah are shown to be more righteous than you. Confronted with the truth of what a person has (or has not) done, having one's shame laid out for everyone to see... ?

You mean if I have a bladder-control problem, then Christ will lay out my Depends for all to see?

I will assume that the point has been made, and you are resorting to something ridiculous in lieu of acknowledging that point?

The fact that there is a Judge and a judgment in no way provides anyone permission to go ahead and enact vigilantism. Especially when the commands of Christ speak directly against doing such a thing.

Here's exactly where you're making a fallacy. You think wrongly that if people are not told to be violent, then they cannot be inspired to be violent.

You continue to dodge the point. Would someone be able to say - justifiably - 'I was inspired to imprison someone in my basement because we have penal system that puts people in prison when they are convicted of crimes...'?

I'm not arguing that it's a sure bet that Christ told his followers to be violent.

Considering that the only evidence on hand shows Christ teaching the exact opposite, I see no way you could make that argument.

I see that you concede Christ's deadly violence. In any case, like I posted above, we do not punish people for what they believe like Christ said he would. We have gone beyond that kind of barbarism.

I concede no such thing, as pointed out above.

You did concede Christ's deadly violence when you spoke of his "judgment."

I spoke of THE Judgment. I spoke also of God being the Judge.

Are you suggesting that all judges are deadly violent because they judge and pronounce sentences?

So are you admitting that you do not know the gospels as well as you claim? You do not recall the instances where Christ said "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..." Or the times He explained that certain laws were given as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people? You do not recall Christ correcting the Pharisees and telling them to go and learn what it means that God desires mercy, not sacrifice? You do not recall that the prophet Jeremiah stated, "How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD]', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" You do not recall Christ ever saying 'woe to you scribes and teachers of the law'?

Yes, and I also know that Christ said he would "fulfill the law." (Matthew 5:17) The law he sought to fulfill was very violent.

Yes, you are admitting that you do not know the gospels as well as you claim?

Did you notice that you ignored all the things Christ said, to assert some personal interpretation of what it means to fulfill the law? Did you also forget that Christ said that the law and the prophets are hang upon the first two commandments: Love God with your whole heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself? That Christ also said,

"In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets."

Those who burned people at the stake got the idea of burning people from Christ's dogmas about hell and Satan and demons and a wrathful God.

You keep saying this as if the so-called evidence that you are using to support your 'claim' has not been refuted or disputed.

Just do some reading about the Inquisition and the witch hunters like I have done.

I must have forgotten about all those witches that Christ and His apostles hunted in the gospels.... oh wait, yeah, that never happened.

Because it just does not seem wise to me to accept the word of those who reveal themselves to be corrupt, to be liars, to be murderers, etc.

Oh sure. That's why I don't take your word that Christ talks to you.

Hmm. Accusations without evidence do seem to be on par for your posts, so at least you are consistent. Then again... if you agree 'oh sure' then why are you taking the word of people who participated in the Inquisition about what or who inspired them?

It would have been kind of hard to arrest Christ while a man was writhing in pain and bleeding all over the place.

How so? How exactly does the injury of one man (the servant of another man) prevent the soldiers present from arresting a different man?

Maybe because they were busy trying to save the man's life not to mention save their own lives from the murderous Peter swinging his sword at them! You really can't figure that out?

A - there is no evidence of any of that. B - Nor is there any evidence that anyone needed to (or tried to) save the man's life. C - And of course, the evidence in the modern world should prove to you that injuries during an arrest do not stop the arrest from occurring. But since that evidence would disprove your claim, I suspect it will just be ignored.

I answered them when you asked them at the start of your post. I did not see any reason that I should need to answer the same question twice in the exact same post.

You didn't answer my questions.

I did.

I suggest you go back and re-read if you missed it.



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