Christianity and Hatred for People

[unknown soldier]

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to nobspeople in post #160]

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

No worries at all. I did not think it was on purpose, and thank you also for the conversation. I just wanted to quickly reply to let you know that I am not ignoring your post, I just did not see it this morning, and I am leaving for work soon (I work weekends). I will respond as soon as I can.

Peace again to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

ARE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY NOMINAL CHRISTIANS JUSTIFIABLE?

While this is sadly true we must not confuse using something or someone to justify atrocities with this being justifiable.

To illustrate an atheist may use your post to justify killing young Christian children, reasoning kill or eventually be killed by them as adults. Indeed it is widely believed the theory of evolution fuelled the eugenics movements which influenced Hitlers exermination programs. Is Charles Darwin to be blamed for the Holocauste?

Jesus was quite clear what he expected of this disciples namely to love even their enemies. None of the autrocities committed in the name of Christ are in fact justifiable.



JW

RELATED POSTS

Early Christians and military service
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p788183

Do the Divine wars in the bible authorize Christians to participate in human conflicts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p827364

What did Jesus mean by "turn the other cheek"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p773650

Do Jehovah's Witnesses "love their neighbours"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 07#p967107

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE, HATE and ...RACIAL UNITY

[Tcg]

[unknown soldier]

[tam]

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to tam in post #166]

Are there any examples of Christianity inciting hatred and violence? If not, what would have to occur for you to agree that Christianity was responsible for inciting hatred and violence? If there are no conceivable situations where Christianity would be responsible for inciting hatred and violence, then what most reasonably explains the hatred and violence that has been committed by people who claim Christianity incited them to commit those actions? Whatever it may be that best explains the hatred and violence committed by people who claim Christianity incited their actions, would it be reasonable to at least hold Christianity accountable for not having established or updated itself with more clearly written guidelines that couldn't possibly be misinterpreted to suggest it was inciting hatred and violence?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #166]

Are there any examples of Christianity inciting hatred and violence?

Absolutely.

But as I said earlier, it is a mistake to equate Christ with Christianity (the religion, organized and institutionalized religion, with all its sects and denominations and religious leaders).

From my first post on this thread:

It is a mistake to equate Christianity (the religion, with all its sects and denominations and doctrines) with Christ. It should be clear that "Christianity" (the religion that claims to be from Christ) contradicts Christ in word and in deed on numerous occasions. "Christianity" (the religion), has most definitely treated mankind (and its own followers) with a decided lack of love. Where was the love for indigenous communities when their children were taken from them and placed in residential schools where they were abused in every sense of the word, even killed? Where was the love for the freedom of people (the very freedom God gives us to choose)... when people have been forced to convert to the religion (or be tortured, punished, persecuted, even killed)? Where is the love for anyone (other than itself/themselves) when religions/religious leaders steal from and lie to their members? Where is the love for children and families who have been abused by leaders in the religion - and - those abusers have been protected by the religion/religious leaders?

viewtopic.php?p=1023244#p1023244

There are more subtle things as well ("demonizing" people who disagree with a particular sect or denomination, or religion, demanding that people shun loved ones - even shunning anyone simply because they no longer believe the edicts of a particular religion, etc.)

If not, what would have to occur for you to agree that Christianity was responsible for inciting hatred and violence?

n/a

If there are no conceivable situations where Christianity would be responsible for inciting hatred and violence, then what most reasonably explains the hatred and violence that has been committed by people who claim Christianity incited them to commit those actions?

Christianity (the religion) does incite such things. That being said, hatred and violence already in that person may incite them and/or cause them to seek out any justification to act on what is already in them. A person could find verses in the bible to justify the hatred and violence they wish to commit (just as some do with the Quran), but they have to completely ignore Christ to do so (and often they have to ignore context as well). Likewise a person could find a sect (a "daughter") or a 'false prophet' or a 'false christ/false anointed ones' that would tell them what they want to hear.

Religion (and religious leaders) also take advantage of (and mislead) ignorant people who listen to them. Though God has told us to listen to His Son.


**

None of this means that there are no kind and compassionate people in religion (all religions) as well as outside of religion. People who may have been misled, but who do understand love, mercy, forgiveness. So that perhaps a religion demands that former members be shunned, but a person chooses to act out of compassion and ignores that rule - secretly or otherwise. That person understands the meaning of "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Even if it were a sin to disobey the edicts of the religion - and I am not saying that it is - LOVE covers OVER a multitude of sins. That sin would be covered over by the love that inspired compassion and mercy, despite the edict of the religion/religious leaders. There is no law against love, therefore there is no law against mercy, which comes from love. Unfortunately, religion tends to use fear as a means of control, and some are too afraid - even if they want to show love - to go against the edicts of the religion.


So my focus is always upon Christ (Jaheshua, the Truth, the Way, the Life) - the one I serve; the one to whom I bear witness; the one to whom God said to listen; the One who is the Truth and who promises to lead HIS sheep into all truth.


Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. John 7:37

Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Matt 11:28


See also John 5:39-40



May you have peace, and may anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear so as to hear the Spirit and the bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

- your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to tam in post #168]

I appreciate receiving your thoughts on this issue. However, I was unable to detect an response to my last questions: Whatever it may be that best explains the hatred and violence committed by people who claim Christianity incited their actions, would it be reasonable to at least hold Christianity accountable for not having established or updated itself with more clearly written guidelines that couldn't possibly be misinterpreted to suggest it was inciting hatred and violence?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #168]

I appreciate receiving your thoughts on this issue. However, I was unable to detect an response to my last questions: Whatever it may be that best explains the hatred and violence committed by people who claim Christianity incited their actions, would it be reasonable to at least hold Christianity accountable for not having established or updated itself with more clearly written guidelines that couldn't possibly be misinterpreted to suggest it was inciting hatred and violence?

Sorry, I did not answer the last question because I did not think it would apply anymore (to me and what I shared in my posts).

The interesting thing that has caught my eye in your question is your suggestion for an update. If Christendom (the religion) were truly from Christ, then it should not need an update - that implies there might have been something wrong with the base; the foundation (Christ and His word). It suggest that the religion may have been steadily progressing for a couple thousand years (getting better and better as time goes on and people become more 'civilized'), but that is not the case. The words from Christ that I have shared were there at the start.

Some might think then that we might need a reset, but isn't that the justification that so many have used to form new sects, new denominations? They claim to be 'taking it back to the beginning', and then they just go on and follow the same patterns as those who came before them (teaching a mixture of truth and falsehood). One has to come out completely (stop touching the unclean thing), tear the house (your faith) all the way down to the foundation cornerstone (Christ) and then let Him build you back up upon Him (upon Truth).


Update or reset; that stuff does not work with religion. Two thousand years should have proven that about Christendom. That religion is not from Christ. He is not at its head.


"Stop touching the unclean thing and I will take you in."

"Come OUT Of her, my people! So that you do not share in her sins..."


("Her" is not specifically religion, but the sects and denominations of the religion "Christianity" are among her daughters.)




**

So I find your question to be difficult to answer. An 'update' is not going to fix things (if you could even get that divided house to come together and form a united update), and might even deceive more people. Religion is about gaining adherents after itself, after all. Religion is not about truth. So whatever gets people in the doors and continuing to pour in the $$, that is what it will do.


Nor should there be any need for an update, because Christ has not changed; His commands did not change; His word has not changed. How much more definitive can you get than His own words that I have shared throughout this thread: love your enemies, do good to those who wrong you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, be merciful, do not judge, forgive... including the examples of Him asking forgiveness for those who persecuted Him, even to His execution, of His rebuke to His own disciples when they asked about 'calling down fire' or His rebuke to Peter when Peter committed violence against another during the arrest of Christ, or His going peacefully even though He could have called down an army of angels; or his teaching of turn the other cheek, give to those in need - including one's own enemies; etc, etc, etc...



**


But if I have misunderstood your question - and/or - how it applies to me and to my posts, perhaps you could rephrase it for me? Thank you!



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

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to tam in post #170]

What information or evidence would you have to receive in order to slightly drop your current confidence level in the claim that the books of the New Testament have reliably recorded the words of Jesus?