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.

[unknown soldier]

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.

Your arguments and comments are so absurd that they invite ridicule.

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.

Allow me to acquaint you with the idea of circumstantial evidence. We have no instances of Hitler authorizing sending people to the death camps (at least not in writing), but the circumstances of his leadership of Germany essentially prove it. Logically, there's no way that Hitler did not know about the camps much less opposed them. In the same way there's no way that Christ did not inspire many of his followers to violence. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that he did.

So Tam, do you deny Hitler's role in the "final solution"? We have no specific examples of his authorizing the concentration camps. To stick with your logic defending Christ, you must defend Hitler the same way.

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...'?

That's a great example of how terrible ideas can influence people to do awful things! Thank you for your support, Tam. Yes, our penal system does inspire people to do harm. I think the death penalty in particular is an evil that should be abolished. If we kill people as a society, then we should not be surprised if individuals in our society inflict "private capital punishment."

The doctrines of Christ influence people in much the same way.

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

If they're anything like Christ's God, then yes, those judges are very violent and cruel.

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

I know them well enough to see the harm they have inspired.

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,

I read everything you cited. I'm well aware that Christ put his own slant on the Jewish scriptures. Do you have any questions about those passages?

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

I see you refuse to do the reading I suggested. Ignorance may be bliss, but willful ignorance can protect you from the truth you fear.

Anyway, I know that Christ's dogmas about demons and the Devil influenced the witch hunters. The witch hunters believed in Christ's version of Satan, and like Christ they believed that some people needed to have devils cast out of them. These devils were seen as the "familiars" of witches who could possess people with those devils.

Accusations without evidence do seem to be on par for your posts, so at least you are consistent.

Where's the evidence that Christ speaks to you?

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?

I take the word of scholars who have written on the subject of the Inquisition. I thought you like scholars at least when they say Christ existed.

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.

Baloney! Peter's assault on the high priest's slave is described in John 18:10.

B - Nor is there any evidence that anyone needed to (or tried to) save the man's life.

Nonsense. If Peter swung his sword so as to cut a man's ear off, then that man's life was in jeopardy and anybody else who was within Peter's striking range could have shared the same fate.

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.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Regardless of whether Peter's deadly violence for his master could have actually prevented Christ's arrest, Peter's sword was an obvious impediment to the progress of Christ's arrest. When Christ stopped Peter from attacking the high priest's slaves, doing so allowed the arrest to proceed.

Anyway, there' nothing new about blind allegiance to a beloved religious leader.

[tam]

Peace again to you all,

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.

Your arguments and comments are so absurd that they invite ridicule.

Except of course that your rant had nothing to do with my comments in this thread.

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.

Allow me to acquaint you with the idea of circumstantial evidence. We have no instances of Hitler authorizing sending people to the death camps (at least not in writing), but the circumstances of his leadership of Germany essentially prove it. Logically, there's no way that Hitler did not know about the camps much less opposed them. In the same way there's no way that Christ did not inspire many of his followers to violence. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that he did.

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is no 'in the same way' here.

I will refer you back to the actual evidence on hand (Christ giving direct commands on how to treat even one's enemies; Christ rebuking the instances where His disciples did - or thought to do - violence; His direct commands on what to do if someone or some village would not welcome then; etc, etc.) Nor did Christ permit or initiate a war (just the opposite in fact).

Bringing 'Hitler' into the argument changes nothing, though it smells a tad desperate. And we do have oral reports of Hitler granting approval of things being done; including him approving a euthanasia order of physical or mentally handicapped people (that is mass murder being approved of right there), etc.

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...'?

That's a great example of how terrible ideas can influence people to do awful things! Thank you for your support, Tam. Yes, our penal system does inspire people to do harm. I think the death penalty in particular is an evil that should be abolished. If we kill people as a society, then we should not be surprised if individuals in our society inflict "private capital punishment."

If that is what you think then your use of the word "inspired" renders the word absolutely meaningless. In your world, action and consequence is justifiable inspiration for people to take the law into their own hands. According to your reasoning, unless we allow people to roam free to cause harm to others, we are inspiring people to take the law into their own hands. In your world, having a justice system inspires vigilantism. That is what you are arguing. That is absurd.

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

If they're anything like Christ's God, then yes, those judges are very violent and cruel.

That did not answer the question I asked. That is just more random ranting.

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,

I read everything you cited.

Reading something does not mean you did not ignore it or its meaning.

I'm well aware that Christ put his own slant on the Jewish scriptures. Do you have any questions about those passages?

Since we're talking about Christ and what HE inspired, His 'slant' would be the only one that matters, yes?

Accusations without evidence do seem to be on par for your posts, so at least you are consistent.

Where's the evidence that Christ speaks to you?

Nice deflection.

This has nothing to do with the fact that you made accusations (including against me in your previous post) without evidence.

Some of the evidence that Christ speaks (even after His death and resurrection and ascension) is in the same gospels you claim to know so well. Since you have accepted that biblical quotes are evidence, in this thread, you can hardly argue against them as evidence now. Not in this thread at least.

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?

I take the word of scholars who have written on the subject of the Inquisition. I thought you like scholars at least when they say Christ existed.

Yeah, considering who you accept as scholars that does not mean much to me. Nor do I take the word of scholars. Like doesn't even enter into it. I examine the actual argument and claim, regardless of who is making it. But despite your suggestion that I should read up on the Inquisition (as if I have never done that), you seem to have a limited understanding of what the Inquisition entailed, or even that there was no ONE inquisition. There were many inquisitions; they spanned many centuries and places, and they were claimed to be done mainly for heresy, or against Jews and Muslims who did not convert (or who were not trusted to have truly converted). Heresy of course would be anything that contradicted the ruling Church and its authority. There was also quite a bit of politics involved, which makes sense, since religion and political authority (including monarchies) are often in bed together (more openly back then).

In practice, the Spanish Inquisition served to consolidate power in the monarchy of the newly unified Spanish kingdom, but it achieved that end through infamously brutal methods.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

I mean, seriously, you only have to read about what the 'inquisitors' were permitted to do to know with an absolute fact that none of this was ever inspired by Christ. If you are interested in the truth, at least.

I will let my previous statements stand on the account of Christ's arrest, and everything else that was not carried down in your post or mine.


I think I have spent enough time on this subject, so unless there is something new that needs responding to (and that has not been responded to in the course of this thread), I will be moving on.



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

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #153]

Nor do I take the word of scholars.

I'm curious as to why not? I mean they should know more about a specific topic they're versed on than you or I, right?
You don't take the word of scholars but you do of men who wrote about another man that's said to be the Son of God - many that didn't even know him AND you take the word of those who translated it AND those who edited it? Surely one of those translators or editors was a scholar of some sort, no?

Or is it ALL scholars or only certain ones?

[unknown soldier]

I think I have spent enough time on this subject, so unless there is something new that needs responding to (and that has not been responded to in the course of this thread), I will be moving on.

OK. I will close too.

...your rant had nothing to do with my comments in this thread.

I was pointing out that your "call to peace" is so much in conflict with your Christ and what he has threatened to do to his enemies that I simply cannot respect any peace you offer.

I will refer you back to the actual evidence on hand (Christ giving direct commands on how to treat even one's enemies; Christ rebuking the instances where His disciples did - or thought to do - violence; His direct commands on what to do if someone or some village would not welcome then; etc, etc.) Nor did Christ permit or initiate a war (just the opposite in fact).

For the umpteenth time I know about all this. It is not adequate to cite a few cases of Christ speaking of love or peace to demonstrate that he really was a loving or peaceful man or that he influenced others to only act with love or mercy towards others. Christ's overall message was of doom for all those he thought were his enemies.

Bringing 'Hitler' into the argument changes nothing, though it smells a tad desperate. And we do have oral reports of Hitler granting approval of things being done; including him approving a euthanasia order of physical or mentally handicapped people (that is mass murder being approved of right there), etc.

Maybe I'll start a thread on the influence Christ had on Hitler. Although there is some evidence that Hitler actually disliked Christ, Hitler loved Christ's methods. Like Christ, Hitler made himself out to be a savior from the "wicked." And like Christ, Hitler thought that the only way to deal with one's enemies is to destroy them.

...our penal system does inspire people to do harm. I think the death penalty in particular is an evil that should be abolished. If we kill people as a society, then we should not be surprised if individuals in our society inflict "private capital punishment."

If that is what you think then your use of the word "inspired" renders the word absolutely meaningless. In your world, action and consequence is justifiable inspiration for people to take the law into their own hands. According to your reasoning, unless we allow people to roam free to cause harm to others, we are inspiring people to take the law into their own hands. In your world, having a justice system inspires vigilantism. That is what you are arguing. That is absurd.

You completely lost me here. How did you get that from what I said? I never said anything about people taking the law into their own hands, and I'm actually opposed to them doing so.

Where's the evidence that Christ speaks to you?

Nice deflection.

Nice question dodge. You evidently don't want to admit that although you complain about others allegedly not offering evidence for what they say, you have no evidence for your saying Christ speaks to you. That claim is just as ridiculous as my saying that Albert Einstein speaks to me.

Some of the evidence that Christ speaks (even after His death and resurrection and ascension) is in the same gospels you claim to know so well. Since you have accepted that biblical quotes are evidence, in this thread, you can hardly argue against them as evidence now. Not in this thread at least.

Oh sure--we do have evidence for Christ speaking to people after he died in the word of some of his most fanatical followers. In the same way we have evidence that the angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith gold tablets that had the Book of Mormon inscribed on them. We have the word of some Mormons that it really happened!

...you seem to have a limited understanding of what the Inquisition entailed, or even that there was no ONE inquisition. There were many inquisitions; they spanned many centuries and places, and they were claimed to be done mainly for heresy, or against Jews and Muslims who did not convert (or who were not trusted to have truly converted). Heresy of course would be anything that contradicted the ruling Church and its authority. There was also quite a bit of politics involved, which makes sense, since religion and political authority (including monarchies) are often in bed together (more openly back then).

I know all that. In no way does it disprove the obvious influence Christ had on the Inquisition.

Allow me to conclude by citing a type of bias I see at play in your argumentation.

In-group bias. This type of bias refers to how people are more likely to support or believe someone within their own social group than an outsider. This bias tends to remove objectivity from any sort of selection or hiring process, as we tend to favor those we personally know and want to help.

See How Does Cognitive Bias Impact the Way We Think? for more information.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #153]

Nor do I take the word of scholars.

I'm curious as to why not?

Because they can and do make mistakes. Nor am I content to allow someone else do my thinking for me. I have found (and I do not think anyone will disagree) that the conclusions of scholars who write about Christ (for or against) and about the bible (including its dating, etc), these conclusions are not based upon hard science. Some of their conclusions are based on interpretations of what is written in that very bible and upon what they think other peoples might have believed.

I mean they should know more about a specific topic they're versed on than you or I, right?

One would think, but that does not mean that they do.

I will not take the word of a scholar over the word of my Lord. Not that I have ever come across anything that anyone has presented (scholar or not) that could overturn something I learned from my Lord.

You don't take the word of scholars but you do of men who wrote about another man that's said to be the Son of God - many that didn't even know him AND you take the word of those who translated it AND those who edited it?

A - I would take the word of someone who was present over the word of someone who was not present (especially when that someone is from hundreds or thousands of years later). Unless there was hard evidence overturning the testimony of those who were present, of course.

B - I do not have to take the word of the men who wrote about Christ (or the translators), because I know Christ, myself. He lives, He speaks and teaches even now, and His sheep listen to His voice. You can believe that or not (or even withhold judgment if you do not have enough evidence to make a judgment), but surely you can understand how that would be more than enough for me.

Surely one of those translators or editors was a scholar of some sort, no?

Or is it ALL scholars or only certain ones?

It would be the same with all scholars (and all men, for that matter). I have no problem with scholars per se, and sometimes one will post the reasoning behind a conclusion, and I will think... oh that makes a lot of sense. Other times the reasoning does not make sense. So it is not the scholar. It is the conclusion being drawn, and the reasoning behind that conclusion, that matters; that I will test and examine.

(Not that I seek out scholars to hear what they have to say; it is just something that comes up in these discussions, sometimes a video is posted, etc.)



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

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #156]

Because they (scholars) can and do make mistakes.

Of course. They're human after all, but can't that be said of any person including those that wrote, translate and edited the bible?

One would think (they know more than you or I), but that does not mean that they do.

Do you think the scholars don't know more than you?

A - I would take the word of someone who was present over the word of someone who was not present (especially when that someone is from hundreds or thousands of years later). Unless there was hard evidence overturning the testimony of those who were present, of course.

So is there hard testimony (please define that BTW) that would over turn anything as the gospels were written well after the death or Jesus:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... mfour.html

I do not have to take the word of the men who wrote about Christ (or the translators), because I know Christ, myself.

So are you ever at odds with what the gospels say (even those that say things the other gospels don't)?

(Not that I seek out scholars to hear what they have to say; it is just something that comes up in these discussions, sometimes a video is posted, etc.)

So you don't seek them out, then you don't know if they're wrong or right? I'm confused: how can you say they may or may not be smarter, that you only take the word of someone present unless hard evidence (definition pending) is presented, but you don't seek them out?
Is it you only listen to them in areas such as this when they're presented?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #156]

Because they (scholars) can and do make mistakes.

Of course. They're human after all, but can't that be said of any person including those that wrote, translate and edited the bible?

Yes, that can be said of any person. I am not using a double standard. But one group of people are commenting on things they were not present for; and another group of people are commenting on things that they WERE present for. (not all the gospels are written by eyewitnesses, mind you. Luke wrote based upon investigation and testimony handed down - which still makes him a better expert than a person a couple thousand years after the fact; and Luke was present for the acts of the apostles and earliest disciples. But the disciple Christ loved - who wrote the gospel of "John" - was an eyewitness and apostle. I know many scholars dispute that, but there is no hard evidence, certainly not enough to overturn the claim of the author himself.)

One would think (they know more than you or I), but that does not mean that they do.

Do you think the scholars don't know more than you?

On many things, they would know more than me. On some things, perhaps not. That does not mean that I should not examine their claims and the reasoning/evidence for their claims, is it?

None know more than my Lord on any topic.

A - I would take the word of someone who was present over the word of someone who was not present (especially when that someone is from hundreds or thousands of years later). Unless there was hard evidence overturning the testimony of those who were present, of course.

So is there hard testimony (please define that BTW)

I did not say hard testimony; I said hard evidence. Such as scientific evidence; something concrete. And the answer to your question is no, not that I have ever seen:

So is there hard testimony (please define that BTW) that would over turn anything as the gospels were written well after the death or Jesus:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... mfour.html

For example, there is no evidence strong enough to overturn the claim that the author of "John" was the "disciple Christ loved" (an apostle and eyewitness).

I do not have to take the word of the men who wrote about Christ (or the translators), because I know Christ, myself.

So are you ever at odds with what the gospels say (even those that say things the other gospels don't)?

I think I might need you to be more specific.

(Not that I seek out scholars to hear what they have to say; it is just something that comes up in these discussions, sometimes a video is posted, etc.)

So you don't seek them out, then you don't know if they're wrong or right? I'm confused: how can you say they may or may not be smarter, that you only take the word of someone present unless hard evidence (definition pending) is presented, but you don't seek them out?
Is it you only listen to them in areas such as this when they're presented?

Yes (to the bold). I do not seek them out because I have my Lord (the Teacher, the Truth) to teach me what is true. He is my Teacher. But if scholars are presented here as evidence of something (as part of ongoing discussions), then I have read, researched, examined their conclusions and the basis for those conclusions.


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

[tam]

May the reader have peace,

Most has been responded to in previous posts and I am content to let it rest, but I just have one point to respond to in your newest post:

...your rant had nothing to do with my comments in this thread.

I was pointing out that your "call to peace" is so much in conflict with your Christ and what he has threatened to do to his enemies that I simply cannot respect any peace you offer.

My wish for peace is not in conflict with Christ (not the Christ I know and bear witness to, the Chosen One of God). My wish for peace is only in conflict with YOUR christ, the one you have invented (or accepted from someone else's invention). That is not on me, unknown soldier. But you are not forced to respect or accept peace, and if you choose to reject it, that peace may simply return to me.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #158]

On many things, they would know more than me. On some things, perhaps not. That does not mean that I should not examine their claims and the reasoning/evidence for their claims, [does] it?

We should never stop learning for any reason! But I think we need to be honest with ourselves and admit when they (scholars) are much more likely to know more than us (unless, of course, we're the better scholar )

I did not say hard testimony; I said hard evidence. Such as scientific evidence; something concrete. And the answer to your question is no, not that I have ever seen:

Yes sorry. I used the wrong word accidentally (no idea where that word came from on my part!)
In regards to hard EVIDENCE have you ever encountered hard evidence that you disagreed with? If so, what was it and what did you use to decide you didn't agree with it?

So are you ever at odds with what the gospels say (even those that say things the other gospels don't)?
I think I might need you to be more specific.

It's been a minute since I read them back-to-back.
For instance, in Mark, Jesus goes rather meekly to his death, saying very little. His exchange with Pilate is very brief. As he dies, he cries out in apparent despair, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (This led to speculation among some early-Christian groups that Jesus had been "possessed" by the Spirit of God.) In John, Jesus has an extensive chat with Pilate, is downright chatty along the route to Golgotha, does a couple of miracles, and upon dying its the "Into your hands I commend my spirit!". This portrays Jesus as would be the prevailing theology later; as the "man in charge", going willingly to his death to fulfill his destiny.
Additionally, in Mark and Matthew Jesus's last words are different ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (15:34)) than listed in Luke ( "Father, forgive them..." (23:34);"You will be with me in Paradise" (23:43);"Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit" (23:46) )
Matthew and Mark seems to take place in slightly similar areas (Galilean towns & villages; some Gentile territory; Galilee, esp. mountains; mostly Jewish areas) while John seems to take place on one long journey to the goal: Jerusalem. There's more for sure. Maybe these differences don't matter if one doesn't think the bible is word for word of God?

Thanks for the conversation and sorry for the error originally as it wasn't done on purpose.

[Clownboat]

May the reader have peace,

Most has been responded to in previous posts and I am content to let it rest, but I just have one point to respond to in your newest post:

...your rant had nothing to do with my comments in this thread.

I was pointing out that your "call to peace" is so much in conflict with your Christ and what he has threatened to do to his enemies that I simply cannot respect any peace you offer.

My wish for peace is not in conflict with Christ (not the Christ I know and bear witness to, the Chosen One of God). My wish for peace is only in conflict with YOUR christ, the one you have invented (or accepted from someone else's invention). That is not on me, unknown soldier. But you are not forced to respect or accept peace, and if you choose to reject it, that peace may simply return to me.

This reminds me of how a flat earther will reject established science, therefore placing themselves in a position of power. Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that's a good feeling.
Why wouldn't a person want to maintain that feeling when it comes to their Christ concept?

Notice how unknown soldier is being accused of inventing or accepting some other Christ. I guess someone thinks that they are the authority, much like how a flat earther is an authority on the shape of the planet I suppose.

Christ (and the Bible) has been used to justify atrocities. Any Christian that rejects this does so at their own credibility IMO.