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.

[Clownboat]

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?

By rejecting the established science, flat earthers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel they're the experts, and that's a food feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Contrast that with...

By rejecting professed Christianity, they place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Something to consider.

[unknown soldier]

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).

So you don't rely on your understanding. That may or may not be a good idea. I'm studying calculus, and I wonder how far I would get if I didn't try to rely on my understanding of it.

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.

Is it OK if I interpret what you say that Christ said?

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

Hasn't everybody acted "contrary to Christ," or are you a special exception?

Instead you are trying to make this about me...

When you say that Christ speaks to you directly, then you make yourself a source of what you say about Christ. I'm just scrutinizing that source.

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.

Christ isn't here to be contradicted, but you are here to speak for him, or so you say. So if I disagree with you, then you see my disagreement as contradicting Christ.

I gave evidence (in the examples) of where "Christianity" has acted contrary to Christ. You are the one refusing to discuss that evidence...

What would you like me to say about that material? Depending on your interpretation of the New Testament, all Christians have acted contrary to Christ.

Are you an example of a person who never acts contrary to Christ?

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.

How can anybody be sure you are not one of them? Note that in the passage you quoted, the people Christ damns are very sure that they acted in accordance with Christ, yet they turned out to be wrong.

Christ is tricky, is he not?

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?

You said "we TEST." You are part of "we."

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

I don't see how such a test is possible considering all the wacky things the gospel says. You came up with the idea of testing "consistency with Christ," so you tell me how to test that consistency.

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)...

But they're coming out of the closet. I'm asking for an example of a current Christian leader who has no known plan to leave Christianity who is an atheist.

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

I'm not sure, Tam. It is you who claims that Christians often do the opposite of what Christ commanded, so you answer that question for me.

My response would be that this makes no sense.

Then you are saying your own claim makes no sense, and I basically agree. It makes little sense that a Christian would act contrary to Christ, but human behavior does not always make sense.

I can be mistaken.

Can you be mistaken about Christ being a loving person?

...I am not to rely upon my own understanding.

So you don't understand your position on Christ?

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).

How is that done?

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?

Bugliosi documents how Manson got his ideas from the New Testament.

The doctrine of eternal torment in hellfire is a man-made doctrine.

But can't I just dismiss your view of hell as "woman made"?

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.

Yes--I'm referring to the judgment of Christ in which he casts his enemies into a lake of fire or any killing of the "unrighteous" that he inflicts on humanity.

So we now see how loving Christ is, and I'm glad you finally conceded it.

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?

No. People are lured into the "Christ sect" to support the mad vision of ruling the world after destroying all opposition.

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?

How am I to counter any claim made by a person speaking for Christ? By definition nothing you share from Christ could possibly be wrong.

That's all assuming, of course, that you truly do receive revelations from Christ and are not merely deluded.

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.

I'm not saying that the Gospel does not portray Christ as a judge. I'm saying that according to the story he is a cruel judge.

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).

And who casts his enemies into fire after preaching that others should be good to their enemies.

I don't know if I would use the word 'sweet', though, because truth is not always 'sweet' or 'easy' or 'nice'.

You don't always seem to appreciate it.

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...

Let's take a look at our two positions:

Tam's View: For almost two thousand years millions of people who said they acted for Christ acted contrary to Christ doing untold harm.
Unknown Soldier's View: For almost two thousand years millions of people who said they acted for Christ got dangerous ideas from Christ doing untold harm.

I submit that my position is far more likely to be true. After all, you have conceded that Christ does act cruelly toward his enemies, so we should not be surprised at all that his followers follow his example.

[tam]

Peace to you,

By rejecting the established science, flat earthers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel they're the experts, and that's a food feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Contrast that with...

By rejecting professed Christianity, they place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Something to consider.

Sounds more like "ad hominem" to me.

"Ad hominem short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[unknown soldier]

Peace to you,

By rejecting the established science, flat earthers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel they're the experts, and that's a food feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Contrast that with...

By rejecting professed Christianity, they place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Something to consider.

Sounds more like "ad hominem" to me.

"Ad hominem short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

But Tam, you have made yourself the substance of the argument that what you post in this forum is what Christ speaks. When I have countered what you've posted about his "love," you have told me that I'm not disagreeing with you but contradicting Christ. You need to realize that one, when you make such outlandish claims you insult the intelligence of everybody you expect to believe them. And two, making such outlandish claims just invites ridicule. So don't be surprised when people start to make comments about your conduct in the discussion.

[unknown soldier]

By rejecting the established science, flat earthers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel they're the experts, and that's a food feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Contrast that with...

By rejecting professed Christianity, they place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Something to consider.

Anybody with a brain that works who has followed this discussion cannot help but to consider what you have said here. Religion is a delusion, and we need not wonder why religious people, if they're serious about their beliefs, are so very often deluded. People, like you suggest, want to feel special, and what can be more special than to be singled-out by an all-mighty God to speak the absolute truth about him?

So what you have posted here is no fallacy. This thread is about the relationship between Christianity and hatred for people. If people base hatred for others on their Christian beliefs and they do, then to criticize them for doing so is very germane to the issue of this debate. We have seen how people are often deluded into believing they have a special relationship to Christ, and that delusion has resulted in hatred for others. To argue against such deluded people is to argue logically.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

By rejecting the established science, flat earthers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel they're the experts, and that's a food feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Contrast that with...

By rejecting professed Christianity, they place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Something to consider.

Sounds more like "ad hominem" to me.

"Ad hominem short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

But Tam, you have made yourself the substance of the argument that what you post in this forum is what Christ speaks.

No, I did not make myself the substance of the argument. Just because I give credit to my Lord for what He has taught me, does not mean that I am the substance of the argument. The substance of the argument is in the argument. I posted evidence and I posted reasoning. I never said - just take my word for anything because I learned this from Christ. I have never said that to anyone, on or off this forum. I post evidence - the substance of the argument - that you can examine and that you can argue (if possible). I may also say that you can go to Christ yourself; that you can and should test all things against Christ (if you are not willing to do that, or if you do not feel able to ask in faith, then at the very least you can look to what He has said in what is written).

When I have countered what you've posted about his "love," you have told me that I'm not disagreeing with you but contradicting Christ.

Can you quote where I have said this to you please?

If I copy a direct quote of something Christ said from what is written, and you contradict that, then yeah, you're contradicting Christ (from what is written). But that's pretty black and white.

You need to realize that one, when you make such outlandish claims you insult the intelligence of everybody you expect to believe them.

I do not expect anything, though I might hope that some would argue the actual argument instead of avoiding it to argue the person. But if you feel insulted simply because I give credit to my Lord if I share something from Him, then I think that is your problem.

And two, making such outlandish claims just invites ridicule. So don't be surprised when people start to make comments about your conduct in the discussion.

Oh, I'm never surprised when people ridicule or use ad hominem to avoid the argument. But I am not inviting ridicule. People (adult people at the very least) are responsible for their own words and their own actions.


And none of this has anything to do with your topic.

You misunderstood 1213. I have not paid close attention to the other quote in your OP. I simply responded as a Christian whose faith and whose Lord (Christ) teaches her and all his sheep, to love even their enemies - and NOT to hate, not even their enemies, not even those who may have done them harm.




Peace still to you.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to tam in post #46]If you have read the OP, you should understand that if you are a "follower of Christ" or whatever you choose to call yourself, then you are indeed the topic of this discussion. We are discussing how such people can be hateful as a result of their beliefs. You have posted that you think it is justified to hurl people into fire as long as the "hurler" is Christ.

That such is your view based on your beliefs is basically what I wanted to demonstrate with this thread.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #46]If you have read the OP, you should understand that if you are a "follower of Christ" or whatever you choose to call yourself, then you are indeed the topic of this discussion. We are discussing how such people can be hateful as a result of their beliefs.

In that sense, yes, since I answered your questions (including the OP) as a Christian. But then I do not know what you are complaining about with regard to me or anything I have said.

I said yes, an atheist (and other non-Christians) can be declared righteous and receive eternal life. I even posted a great deal of support for that, including from what is written so that you can see it for yourself. I also posted my Lord's teaching on love (who we are to love and even how), as well as His teaching on not judging and being merciful and forgiving, and I follow His teaching.

I do not hate anyone. And if I did hate someone, it would be against my faith and against the teachings of my Lord.

You have posted that you think it is justified to hurl people into fire as long as the "hurler" is Christ.

A - The lake of fire is the second death; not a place of eternal torment. I also believe that you posted earlier that it would be justified for police (or whomever) to shoot and kill person "A" who is coming to kill another person "B", in order to protect person "B" and keep them safe. I assume you might also think a person is justified to defend their families against an intruder into their home who has come to cause them harm (even death).

B - God (the Father of Christ) is the Judge. Christ is not the Judge. He has the right to judge, but leaves judgment to His Father. As to your earlier accusation of hypocrisy, God has the right to judge, and there is no hypocrisy involved. If we judge another person, then we are bringing judgment upon ourselves, because we all sin. For "by the measure you use against others, it will be measured against you". This is why Christ has said, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned; forgive and you will be forgiven; be merciful and you will be shown mercy; let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

God does not sin.

Plus, eternal life is a gift. No one is owed it.

Even so, as Christ said, God allows the sun to shine on the righteous and the unrighteous alike; He also provides the means for even enemies to turn, repent, attain forgiveness and eternal life.




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

[DavidLeon]

Debating belief is futile. If we are debating the belief of natural selection and eternal destruction what could one possibly expect from that? Debating Christian doctrine is too convoluted. Speaking for myself I would say that I hate people; I hated people when I was an unbeliever and I hate them now. The Bible has various meanings of hate. Some "righteous" and some "unrighteous." To wish harm upon someone is unrighteous. I don't wish harm on anyone. Righteous hatred means that you disapprove of something or someone and so have as little as possible to do with it. I hate people. I hate the world. I don't hate individual persons, I hate people.

I've never heard any critic of Christianity accuse it of being hatred for humanity, but that's close to what it's history for nearly two thousand years has been. That has actually been more about land and power than anything. Maybe Christians who killed and died in all of their wars didn't actually hate the people they killed. Maybe they just wanted land and power.

If you truly want to know what's going on in the minds of apologists, Christians, and critics of Christianity the last thing you want to do is ask them. You want to observe them, or their history. Debating belief is futile.

To tell us that Christ taught love and that all of those who would hate in his name are acting against his teachings is meaningless if you are debating belief. You can make believe Christ taught anything you want and anyone acting against that is hatred. If you observe Christ chasing the money changers away, criticizing the religious leaders of his day and in the future destroying most of civilization would you call that hate? Maybe you would. Maybe I wouldn't. Debating belief is futile.

Asking what two locals believe gives you the opportunity to misinterpret what two locals believe. If Matthew 25:46 is true then the righteous would warn, not hate, the unrighteous. If Romans 6:23 is true then we all die. Are you learning anything in your criticism of your former belief, soldier?

Those who look at the societies that God destroyed do not act in fear and dread. If they did they wouldn't be a part of the societies that God would destroy. God doesn't know the future because the future doesn't exist. God only knew the present of those he sentenced to everlasting destruction. We are all separate from "God's goodness." To think otherwise is illusory. Adam, before he sinned, was separated from the "goodness" of God.

If I had an aquarium teaming with fishes and there was an aggressive fish always tearing other fish to pieces, and a fish unfortune in having a very contagious fatal disease what would you recommend I do about it? It doesn't matter what you feel about it, the question is what would you do about it?

If there is a guy in the sky who can snuff you out my advice to you would be if you can't beat him, join him. If you would rather not then what do you have to complain about?

[unknown soldier]

Debating belief is futile.

Then why do you debate belief?

Speaking for myself I would say that I hate people; I hated people when I was an unbeliever and I hate them now.

You feel what you feel! Personally, I don't hate anybody, and now that I'm an atheist, I have a more positive attitude toward people.

Righteous hatred means that you disapprove of something or someone and so have as little as possible to do with it. I hate people. I hate the world. I don't hate individual persons, I hate people.

I agree that some hatred is actually good. For example, hating injustice is good. I've noticed that when people engage in crime, they will react to their accusers saying that those accusers are "hateful." If it's hateful to point out that somebody is engaging in illegal activity, then by all means be hateful.

I've never heard any critic of Christianity accuse it of being hatred for humanity, but that's close to what it's history for nearly two thousand years has been. That has actually been more about land and power than anything. Maybe Christians who killed and died in all of their wars didn't actually hate the people they killed. Maybe they just wanted land and power.

People seeking land and power can put a religious spin on their efforts and often do. So although religion might not be the person's true motive, religion does help them get what they want.

If you truly want to know what's going on in the minds of apologists, Christians, and critics of Christianity the last thing you want to do is ask them. You want to observe them, or their history.

Why not do all of that to know what apologists are thinking?

To tell us that Christ taught love and that all of those who would hate in his name are acting against his teachings is meaningless if you are debating belief. You can make believe Christ taught anything you want and anyone acting against that is hatred.

I've had apologists accuse me of being hateful when I criticize their beliefs for being based in hatred.

If you observe Christ chasing the money changers away, criticizing the religious leaders of his day and in the future destroying most of civilization would you call that hate? Maybe you would.

There's no maybe about it; I do call it hatred for humanity.

Are you learning anything in your criticism of your former belief, soldier?

The first thing I learned about Christian beliefs when I became an atheist is how much people cling to those beliefs, the facts be damned. For a while I was naive thinking that when I explained to Christians why their beliefs are false, then they would answer: "Oh really! You mean Christianity is bunk, and God was made up by people? Thanks for the information. I will adjust my thinking accordingly." Of course, most people didn't react that way, and I encountered a lot of anger and denial from them.

Those who look at the societies that God destroyed do not act in fear and dread. If they did they wouldn't be a part of the societies that God would destroy.

Yes. Most Christians don't mind those stories because they see all that horror as being inflicted on somebody else.

If I had an aquarium teaming with fishes and there was an aggressive fish always tearing other fish to pieces, and a fish unfortune in having a very contagious fatal disease what would you recommend I do about it? It doesn't matter what you feel about it, the question is what would you do about it?

Put the aggressive fish in a separate aquarium. That way there's no need to have any fish die. God is not as smart and kind as I am because he stupidly killed people to safeguard his own people, or so we are told. Could God not figure out that he should just keep those people separate like fish in separate aquariums?

If there is a guy in the sky who can snuff you out my advice to you would be if you can't beat him, join him. If you would rather not then what do you have to complain about?

Rather not what?

So Dave, I was good enough to answer all your questions. Please answer mine: Is there a relationship between Christianity and hatred for people?