tam wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:00 pmYou 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?
You are welcome to fact check everything I say.
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. 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. Christ rebuked James and John because the time had not yet come to burn people. Centuries later the Inquisition believed the time had come for them to do so.
...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.
I'm not going to waste my time with that kind of nonsense.
I consider your accusations and claims and suppositions to be nonsense, but I still tried. Not specifically (or just) for your sake, but for the sake of the reader as well.
I take back what I said. You have a right to make your case.
Where have I denied the harm done to others?
You appear to be denying the reason why so many people are harmed by the Christ myth. Do you feel compassion for those harmed by the Christ myth and remorse for their deaths?
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 believe what you want to believe.
In some cases I might believe what I want to. Almost everybody believes what they want to at least in some situations. It's no secret that many people cling to their religious beliefs, for example. In any case, as you can see I recognize my bias which I think is the first step in mitigating bias.
Your position is also inconsistent. I mean, if you are shown to be wrong on something you state about Christ (as has occurred in this thread), you simply wriggle away from that error, and pull a new reason out of a hat to consider Him to be at fault. That demonstrates bias, and that no matter what evidence is given to you which shows Christ loved others (taught us the same), even His enemies, you will twist it into something bad.
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but it is true that I try to "go under the hood" to understand what Christ might be saying in a particular passage in his story. (I did so earlier in my analysis of Luke 9:51-56.) So I don't just "pull anything out of a hat" but always try to have good reasons for what I conclude.
And I do not have a 'cool myth to enjoy'.
I take that back too. I really don't know what you may or may not be enjoying.
You are the one who cannot make up your mind whether you are arguing against a myth or an actual person.
You are correct that I'm not sure if Christ existed or not, but for the purposes of simplicity and brevity in this discussion I am assuming that he existed. In any case, I hope we can come to a mutual understanding of the impact that the Christ figure has had on the world.
