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 again to you,


Part 1 (so it is not too long in one post):

If we are going by what is written, then what Christ said is a matter of public record. It does not require belief to read and see what He said.

You need to interpret much of what's written in the gospels. That's where people differ.

People differ because they are relying upon their own understanding (or the understanding of other men).

I disagree with those who contradict what He has said. Including you.

I've always quoted the Bible verbatim and have interpreted it as accurately as I am able.

I have quoted verbatim to you from what my Lord has said. No interpretation is required for those things about love that I have quoted from Christ.

Do you see yourself as an infallible interpreter of scripture? If so, do you believe you are a prophet?

I did not provide interpretations. I provided examples of "Christianity" (the religion) - that are also a matter of public record - where "Christianity" has acted contrary to Christ's teaching...

So when you read the Bible it is for you not interpretation but a perfect understanding. You see all those who disagree with you as deliberately contradicting what Christ taught, and that includes essentially all of Christianity including many Bible scholars. Unlike you, Christianity acts and teaches contrary to Christ.

You are STILL overlooking and refusing to discuss the examples that I posted - examples that show "Christianity" has indeed acted contrary to Christ.

Instead you are trying to make this about me, but you are also wrong about me:

To your first sentence: I do not think the Bible is "a perfect understanding"

To your second sentence: I don't AT ALL think that those who disagree with me are deliberately contradicting what Christ taught. I think that those who contradict Christ are contradicting Christ.

To your third sentence: I gave evidence (in the examples) of where "Christianity" has acted contrary to Christ. You are the one refusing to discuss that evidence, and are instead making this about me.

**


But here is another example for you to consider:

"Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 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? 23 Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!

You see this, right? He says that He NEVER knew them. He says that MANY will say this, and to these MANY, He will say that He never knew them.

I mean that right there should tell you that many who profess to be Christian are not Christian, are not from Him, are not even known by Him.

I'm not looking to discredit you. I'm trying to get you to question these erroneous interpretations that you have come up.

So any interpretation that differs from your own must be erroneous.

No, any interpretation that contradicts Christ must be erroneous.

An interpretation that contradicts the evidence at hand is quite possibly erroneous as well.

So then we TEST they are claiming - against Christ and His word.

I assume that you administer the test and judge who fails or passes that test.

Why are you continuing to make this about me, rather than discussing the content?

How would you suggest we test if someone's claim about Christ is true or not?

...some who profess to be Christians - who are leaders in the religion - don't even believe in God, much less that He has a Son.

Can you please post an example of a Christian leader who is an atheist?

I can direct you to a website/project that is entirely devoted to said religious leaders (note that these are current religious leaders, still in leadership positions):

https://clergyproject.org/

The Clergy Project was launched in March 2011 to create a safe and secure Online Community of Forums composed entirely of religious leaders who no longer hold to supernatural beliefs.



To be continued....

[tam]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #29]

Peace again to you.

Part II

How can a person claim that Christ inspired them to do the exact opposite of what He commanded, all the while claiming to be faithful to Him?

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to know the answer to this question, but it's entirely possible that if a person does something that is the opposite of what Christ commanded while claiming to be faithful to Christ, then that person might be mistaken.

Yes.

But upon re-reading my question, it seems to be a bit confusing, so I apologize. It should simply read:

How can a person claim that Christ inspired them to do the exact opposite of what He commanded?

My response would be that this makes no sense. This claim would be false (even if the person making it believed it).

I must assume that you would not categorize yourself as a person who could be so mistaken.

I can be mistaken. Hence, I am not to rely upon my own understanding. And you (general you) should test all things against Christ; hold all things up against the Light (Christ) to see if something is true (or not).

You are the one claiming that people like Charles Manson are inspired by Christ. What makes that claim true? Just because he said so?

Actually, in Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter it is documented about how Manson was inspired by the Bible to commit his murders.

How does that make the claim true?

Andrea Yates was reacting to a teaching from "Christianity" (the religion)... she was not reacting to a teaching from Christ.

Christ did not preach the hell that "Christianity" (the religion) preaches.

Was Andrea Yates too stupid to understand what Christ meant? I think it's safe to say that she read the Gospel for herself.

I'm not sure why you think its safe to say that. There are many who rely upon their religion to tell them what is written, or to tell them what is meant by what is written. The doctrine of eternal torment in hellfire is a man-made doctrine. Remember that choice God gave (I quoted it earlier). It was not between life and eternal torment in hell. It was between life and death.

As for Andrea Yates' intelligence, I have no comment. I think poor Andrea Yates was deceived and unwell.

I have posted the MANY verses and direct commands that reveal what Christ taught, as well as the understanding that the apostles and disciples had on these teachings (about love), as well as the reasoning that goes with love being the law. But you will ignore all of that evidence, and focus on one single verse (the meaning of which we discussed on another thread).

I rebutted all of that to the best of my ability. I didn't ignore anything you posted.

You did not respond to most of it (which sounds like ignoring or dismissing to me) and you gave some off the wall interpretation to one point; an interpretation that you provided no evidence to support.

1213 put the same verse up that I put up, from Romans, where some people do NATURALLY the things required by the law. They do not have the law, they do not even have to have heard the law, they simply have to do the requirements of the law NATURALLY.

At other times he linked righteousness to Christ. So without Christ, there is no righteousness according to 1213.

People can be righteous in Christ (due to their faith). People can be declared righteous on the basis of what they do NATURALLY (such as forgiving, showing mercy, giving to those in need, etc).

1213 has said both because both are correct.

In any case, I note that you see 1213's talk of killing people as consistent with what Christ taught.

Are you referring to the Judgment? Where some (who already died) are resurrected - some to life and some to judgement and the second death? If that is what you are referring to, then yes, that is consistent with what Christ taught.



to be continued....

[tam]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #29]

Peace to you.


Part III (last one)

Instead of just focusing on me, perhaps you could take a look at the content of what I shared?

I am looking at that content. You claim to have direct revelations from Christ. Am I supposed to take that seriously?

I meant the content contained in the link I provided.

I share the MANY verses about love (for God, for one's neighbor, for one's enemies, for one another), and the many commands that Christ gave which show love (forgive, be merciful, give to the one in need, pray for those who persecute you, the golden rule, etc)... but all of these are just the smile on the crocodile's face?

Yes. It's all a lot of baloney to lure people into the sect of Christ. Any decent person already knows the importance of love, forgiveness, etc.

Lure people into the sect of Christ so that they can continue to forgive, be merciful, give to the one in need, pray for those who persecute them, follow the golden rule, love God, love neighbor, love enemy, love one another?

Where is the evidence that there was some kind of imminent danger of these people being immediately cast into hell unless Christ asked His Father to forgive them? That Christ was just asking for a delay?

That's my interpretation based on what I've read in the gospel.

So you're not going to provide any evidence to back it up? That sounds much more like an opinion, and one that is based upon nothing except a desire to find fault with Christ.

And as the Spirit has just reminded me...

So you base what you're posting on what the Spirit is telling you. That Spirit makes sure you get it all right while the Spirit doesn't bother to inform Christianity.

Hmm. What is interesting to me is that you ignored the point that was made (which countered your claim), so that you could voice your complaint that the Spirit told me this. Is what I shared from Him incorrect?

Is that an example of the good things Christ did for his enemies?

That is an example of the Judgment, and God (the Father of Christ) is the Judge. Not everyone receives eternal life. Some receive judgement and the second (eternal) death. This is based upon their deeds as recorded in their individual scrolls.

So the good things Christ does for his enemies is to toss them into a lake of fire. I thought that you were going to say there is no lake of fire or that if there is, then people jump into it of their own accord.

Christ warned - even His enemies - that there was a judgment to come. Christ also invited - even His enemies - to repent and to come to life instead. What people choose to do though, is up to them.

No one is owed the gift of eternal life.

In closing this LONG post, I come away with your claim that Christ was a wonderful, sweet guy who never said anything wrong.

Christ is an awesome Lord and Master, who loves His sheep and who takes care of us; who intercedes on our behalf with the Father, who grants us eternal life and always speaks truth to us (including disciplining us as needed). True, He never said anything wrong. He always spoke as His Father taught Him, and He always spoke the truth.

I don't know if I would use the word 'sweet', though, because truth is not always 'sweet' or 'easy' or 'nice'. Christ said some tough - albeit true - things; and truth comes from love. How can we make a proper and informed decision on anything unless we know what is true?

Those millions of people who have for many centuries persecuted and killed in his name were doing the opposite of what he taught.

Yes.

I would think that if Christ is what you say, then it seems very strange that all those killers found him to be so very useful.

No different than what has happened before:


A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land. 31The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own authority. And my people love it so, but what will you do in the end? Jeremiah 5:30, 31


Christ also warned us about false prophets and false christs:




"Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, I am he, and will deceive many."

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.





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

[unknown soldier]

In closing this LONG post, I come away with your claim that Christ was a wonderful, sweet guy who never said anything wrong. Those millions of people who have for many centuries persecuted and killed in his name were doing the opposite of what he taught.

And in all that time Christ never thought that he failed to deliver his message clearly to everyone and that he should take some sort of action to set the record straight.

Well, I understand that Christ has told Tam via his Spirit that evil Christendom has been making use of his words of love, mercy, and kindness to hate, persecute, and kill. To solve this problem, Christ has sent Tam to this forum to set the record straight.

I must wonder, though: If Christ's words did not succeed in inspiring good the first time around as we read them in the four gospels, then why does Christ think that sending Tam to this forum will work any better?

[tam]

Peace to you,

In closing this LONG post, I come away with your claim that Christ was a wonderful, sweet guy who never said anything wrong. Those millions of people who have for many centuries persecuted and killed in his name were doing the opposite of what he taught.

And in all that time Christ never thought that he failed to deliver his message clearly to everyone and that he should take some sort of action to set the record straight.

Well, I understand that Christ has told Tam via his Spirit that evil Christendom has been making use of his words of love, mercy, and kindness to hate, persecute, and kill.

I can't find where I said that.

I have said (or rather, repeated what my Lord is written to have said) that false messiahs and false prophets will come, claiming to have come in His name, and will mislead even the elect if possible.

The following is at the bottom of the post directly above yours:

A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land. 31The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own authority. And my people love it so, but what will you do in the end? Jeremiah 5:30, 31


Christ also warned us about false prophets and false christs:


"Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, I am he, and will deceive many."

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

To solve this problem, Christ has sent Tam to this forum to set the record straight.

He sends His disciples out to bear witness to Him. He, Himself, also bears witness to the truth.

Would you not also be complaining if He did nothing to help those who have been misled but who are seeking Him?



Peace again to you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #27]

No. Logically what you're posting here cannot work because what is right for Pam to do may not be what is right for Pete. I was referring to what Pam decides is right according to her point of view--not what she acts on. So if Pam thinks hating Pete is right, then she has the right to think so. If she acts on her hatred for Pete to needlessly harm him, then that's not acceptable.

Are you basing that on your moral assumption? There are countries in this world where slavery is still acceptable, hatred of a slave and killing them brings no retribution. There are some humans that eat other humans, we call them head hunters. They would not agree with you. So again not everyone sees the world and morality as you see it.

That is why objective morality is needed. Biblical law which does not change can declare these behaviors as immoral moral relativity cannot. All moral relativity can say when Pam kills Pete is that killing Pete is not what I would think is moral. But if Pam would convince enough people that Pete has to die then your "moral" statement would be classified as immoral according to your philosophy.

Oh but I can make moral judgments, and I do! I have freely chosen morality that sees the Bible's barbarism as expressed by 1213 and by you for that matter as unacceptable in a civilized society. Destroying societies that are seen as sinful is, I hope, a remnant of bygone primitive theocracies.

You can make that moral choice for yourself that is correct. But not for anyone else. According to your philosophy, everyone should be able to choose what their morality is. But what are you basing this "freely chosen morality" on? Your feelings. So if someone sways your feelings one way or another your morality changes that mood swing. That is interesting. That is what mob behavior is based on.

But why do you see of a human differently than the death of a cow or a pig? Billions of cows and pigs die every year, they are brought to the slaughtering house and killed and butchered so that I can have my tasty steak. (Well, me and others) Doesn't the plight of cows and pigs reach your feelings barometer? If a man is simply a smarter animal than the rest of the animal kingdom why do you not write a post about the plight of all of the animals that we as humans eat, like fish, turkey, chicken, and deer? Ok, I might need to stop I am getting hungry.

But you are concerned about men and children dying. What about the baby cows we slaughter that give us veal? So what makes man different than animals that would bring about this emotional response in you?

What if someone convinced the majority of people that a baby could be "aborted" after it was born.
Then that's what would happen. Sometimes people do what we think is wrong. That's life.
According to your philosophy that would be right and moral.
No. I think infanticide is wrong.

You couldn't say it was wrong and be moral according to your philosophy. Remember, the majority can choose what morality is. So what would you be basing that belief on?

What if someone convinced the majority of people that having baby boys was better than having baby girls and the girl babies could be killed. According to your moral philosophy that would also be moral.
No. I think infanticide is wrong.

You couldn't say it was wrong and be moral according to your philosophy. Remember, the majority can choose what morality is. So what would you be basing that belief on?

What if someone convinced the majority of people that everyone that went by the name EarthscienceGuy should be killed. According to your philosophy, everyone that is named EarthScienceguy would be immoral if they did not go along with it.
No. I think killing EarthscienceGuy is wrong. I'm having too much fun telling him why he is wrong.

I am glad to hear that because I also think that would be wrong. But the reason why I can say it is wrong is that I was made in the image of God and that makes me different than the animals around us and only He has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies.

The only thing you could say is that I do not feel it is right to kill EarthScienceguy.

Moral relativism has caused some of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao all used moral relativism to commit some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever known.
I don't think so. Who on that list granted anybody the option to disagree with them? It was their absolutist morality that led to genocide. Their followers had to obey them no questions asked. Which, of course, is Christian "morality"--obey Christ and his God without question. That's the morality that led you to post that entire societies should be destroyed.

According to your philosophy, they did not have to. All they simply had to do was achieve a simple majority and there was a new morality in the land, according to your philosophy.

In Christian morality, God is the only one who can make that choice of who lives and who dies. In moral relativism, any man who gains a simple majority of the people in their country can decide who lives and dies that is the difference.

Science has not changed. The devastation socially has not changed. The death that it causes also has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the man's opinion on the issue because they have been led astray by those in leadership.
Actually, the world is getting less violent and overall quality of life has improved as science advances and religion declines.
Democracy is not perfect, but it beats theocracy.

My prayer is that you won't but I am afraid that in the not so distant future that you will understand how wrong you really are.
What do you mean by this? I feel threatened by this comment.

Context man, Context! We were discussing governments killing their citizens and those in leadership.

Actually, I was referring to the whole world as a civilization. Much of the world has been affected little by Christianity, yet it has developed.
What part of the world is that?
Primarily Asia including Japan, China, and India.

All of those countries owe their technological advances to the west, the United States, and England mostly.

In any case, I think people generally make good moral decisions most of the time. You appear to be stuck in the Christian idea that people are all evil wretches who cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. That idea is demonstrably false. Besides, if you don't trust people's morality, then you cannot trust the people who made up Christian morality.

I am stuck on the idea that the only hope for this world is Biblical morality yes. Because the sanctity and dignity of human life only come from Biblical morality.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #27]

No. Logically what you're posting here cannot work because what is right for Pam to do may not be what is right for Pete. I was referring to what Pam decides is right according to her point of view--not what she acts on. So if Pam thinks hating Pete is right, then she has the right to think so. If she acts on her hatred for Pete to needlessly harm him, then that's not acceptable.

Are you basing that on your moral assumption?

I'm basing my answer on my use of reasoning. In my view, people have rights, and one person's rights end where the other person's rights begin. Pam has no right to needlessly harm Pete because he has the right to safety.

There are countries in this world where slavery is still acceptable, hatred of a slave and killing them brings no retribution.

That's terrible! You mean there are countries today that have slavery like Biblical Israel did? I'm disappointed that we have yet to completely advance beyond that kind of primitive barbarism, but if I have my way, then the world will never again be blighted by the scourge of slavery as condoned by the Bible.

There are some humans that eat other humans, we call them head hunters.

I know all about cannibalism. Christianity celebrates ritualized symbolic cannibalism and vampirism too.

So again not everyone sees the world and morality as you see it.

That's very sad. If only they did see morality my way, then the world would be a far better place.

That is why objective morality is needed.

What is objective morality, and how is it distinguished from subjective morality?

Biblical law which does not change can declare these behaviors as immoral moral relativity cannot.

I can declare anything as immoral, and in fact I declare much of the Bible to be immoral. The men who made it up must have been truly sick individuals who hated people.

All moral relativity can say when Pam kills Pete is that killing Pete is not what I would think is moral. But if Pam would convince enough people that Pete has to die then your "moral" statement would be classified as immoral according to your philosophy.

Would you disagree with Pam if Pete was a psychotic killer who was headed straight for her with an ax in his hands? If she could convince some nearby police officers that her life was in jeopardy and that they needed to gun down Pete to save her life, would you say she was wrong?

So I hope you can see where you're going wrong with your absolutist morality. We need to think about morality and judge what's best on a case by case basis. Blindly following some rules made up by a self-appointed religious prophet will lead to tragedy and has led to tragedy.

But what are you basing this "freely chosen morality" on? Your feelings.

No. Again my morality is based on reason; yours is based on a lack of reason.

But why do you see of a human differently than the death of a cow or a pig? Billions of cows and pigs die every year, they are brought to the slaughtering house and killed and butchered so that I can have my tasty steak. (Well, me and others) Doesn't the plight of cows and pigs reach your feelings barometer? If a man is simply a smarter animal than the rest of the animal kingdom why do you not write a post about the plight of all of the animals that we as humans eat, like fish, turkey, chicken, and deer? Ok, I might need to stop I am getting hungry.

Those are issues that I have yet to resolve. I should point out that the Bible is useless in that regard.

But you are concerned about men and children dying. What about the baby cows we slaughter that give us veal? So what makes man different than animals that would bring about this emotional response in you?

Well, people are different from other species. Plus I happen to be a person, so I suppose I'm biased toward people. I see people as more important than pigs or cows.

What does the Bible say about such issues? Nothing. It's useless and irrelevant in our modern world.

I think infanticide is wrong.

You couldn't say it was wrong and be moral according to your philosophy. Remember, the majority can choose what morality is. So what would you be basing that belief on?

I can say anything is wrong. The majority can never choose my morality because I choose my morality.

I think killing EarthscienceGuy is wrong. I'm having too much fun telling him why he is wrong.

I am glad to hear that because I also think that would be wrong.

Do you see what's great about my morality? If some barbarian like Moses said that Yahweh wanted you stoned to death, then I could tell Moses what to do with his stones. If I had your morality, then I would need to throw rocks at you until you died.

But the reason why I can say it is wrong is that I was made in the image of God and that makes me different than the animals around us and only He has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies.

Again, if God supposedly said you must die, then those who have your kind of morality would kill you. I would not kill you.

So which morality do you prefer?

In Christian morality, God is the only one who can make that choice of who lives and who dies.

Actually, since God never shows up to judge who lives and who dies, we would put our faith in some person who convinces us he speaks for God to make such judgments. The results have often been very tragic. Just ask "Bloody Mary."

My prayer is that you won't but I am afraid that in the not so distant future that you will understand how wrong you really are.

What do you mean by this? I feel threatened by this comment.

Context man, Context! We were discussing governments killing their citizens and those in leadership.

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

All of those countries owe their technological advances to the west, the United States, and England mostly.

I suppose that's a plug for the US and the UK. So what?

I am stuck on the idea that the only hope for this world is Biblical morality yes. Because the sanctity and dignity of human life only come from Biblical morality.

That's hogwash. The Bible is a book of barbarism that commands that innocent people like homosexuals be murdered.

[brunumb]

That is why objective morality is needed. Biblical law which does not change can declare these behaviors as immoral moral relativity cannot.

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

[brunumb]

In Christian morality, God is the only one who can make that choice of who lives and who dies.

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 judgement as well.

[brunumb]

I am stuck on the idea that the only hope for this world is Biblical morality yes. Because the sanctity and dignity of human life only come from Biblical morality.

Killing all the first born of Egypt to win a battle of wits with a mere human pharaoh does not reflect such a principle. God rarely finds other solutions to problems that does not involve slaughtering people. All we usually get in response is "well, they deserved it". So much for the sanctity of human life.