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 to you,

[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?

My Lord could tell me that a specific verse did not represent His words or meaning (perhaps the scribes copied or translated wrong). Or if something written was in conflict with love (God is love, and truth comes from love), then I would suspect that particular verse had not been copied or translated entirely accurately.

I suspect there are a couple of instances like that. We know the translation of some verses are disputed. And 'these three are one', for instance.

But unless you are suggesting that Christianity has recently whitewashed the words of Christ (as recorded) and originally those words were recorded as 'go and commit violence and hatred', then I am not sure what your question has to do with what we are talking about?


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

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to tam in post #172]

My apologies for straying off topic but was just curious to know your perspective. Thanks.

[tam]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #173]

No worries at all and no need to apologize. I just wasn't sure if I was missing something, or where we were going.


Peace again to you!

[Paul of Tarsus]

Is there a relationship between Christianity and hatred for people?

There's no way that Christianity can cause hatred because true Christianity only inspires love.

[Tcg]

There's no way that Christianity can cause hatred because true Christianity only inspires love.

What we have here is a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to discard all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:

1. During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.[2][3]

2. Before the argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created made up arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.[4]

One can think of NTS as a form of inverted cherry picking, where instead of selecting favourable examples, one rejects unfavourable ones. The NTS fallacy paves the path to other logical fallacies, such as letting the "best" member of a group represent it. Thanks to these remarkable qualities, the NTS fallacy has proved a vital tool in the promotion of denialism.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Christianity inspires a great many things and has been shown in this thread, hatred is at times one of them.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

There's no way that Christianity can cause hatred because true Christianity only inspires love.

What we have here is a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to discard all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:

1. During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.[2][3]

2. Before the argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created made up arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.[4]

One can think of NTS as a form of inverted cherry picking, where instead of selecting favourable examples, one rejects unfavourable ones. The NTS fallacy paves the path to other logical fallacies, such as letting the "best" member of a group represent it. Thanks to these remarkable qualities, the NTS fallacy has proved a vital tool in the promotion of denialism.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

But there are no counter-examples to exclude from those who follow Christ and his teachings. Christ taught us to love others including our enemies and to treat them well. So if any professing Christian hates others, then that person is in violation of what Christ taught and not being true to her or his faith. As such, that person is arguably not a true Christian. So I'm not excluding anybody for the purpose of defending my conclusion that no true Christian can do evil; I am excluding those who just don't fit the profile of what Christ's followers are.

Christianity inspires a great many things and has been shown in this thread, hatred is at times one of them.

Is it possible that if a professed Christian acts hatefully toward others, then that person may be hateful for some reason other than her or his Christian faith?

[Tcg]

So I'm not excluding anybody for the purpose of defending my conclusion that no true Christian can do evil; I am excluding those who just don't fit the profile of what Christ's followers are.

Yes, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Is it possible that if a professed Christian acts hatefully toward others, then that person may be hateful for some reason other than her or his Christian faith?

Examples have been provided where a person's Christian faith inspired their hatred. If some hate for other reasons it wouldn't change this fact.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

So I'm not excluding anybody for the purpose of defending my conclusion that no true Christian can do evil; I am excluding those who just don't fit the profile of what Christ's followers are.

Yes, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

With all due respect, it's not good argumentation to merely accuse your interlocutor of making a mistake in his reasoning; you should demonstrate that he is making a logical error.

Let me demonstrate that I'm not making any errors in my logic. Any statement of the form, "no true A is X" may or may not be true. For example, the statement, "No true Scotsman is a woman," is true, and there is no fallacy to say that no true Scotsman is a woman. So is it true to say that no true Christian is a hateful person? John 13:35 says:

By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Christ is telling us here that we can know his true followers by their love. No love = not a true Christian. So if any professed Christian is hateful, then that person is not a true Christian by Christ's own words.

Examples have been provided where a person's Christian faith inspired their hatred. If some hate for other reasons it wouldn't change this fact.

What I'm asking is if a supposed Christian's hatred may be rooted in something besides Christianity. What evidence do you have that rules out that possibility?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #179]

Would it be a "Fallacy of Composition" for someone to infer that Christianity does not incite hatred because Christ did not incite hatred, or is Christianity only defined by what the New Testament claims are the actual words spoken by Jesus when he was preaching to his followers and nothing else from any other Christian sources including the non-canonical gospels and the Old Testament?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #179]

Would it be a "Fallacy of Composition" for someone to infer that Christianity does not incite hatred because Christ did not incite hatred ....?

I think that would depend on how one defines "Christianity".



If Christianity is defined as "all those professing belief in the teachings of Christ", then for someone to infer that Christianity does not incite hatred because Christ did not incite hatred might be accused of committing a "Fallacy of Composition" . If on the otherhand Christianity is definded as the body of individuals that follow the teachings of Christ, then like a body of clean water, by definition the whole must reflect the properties of the part.


JW


RELATED POSTS

What is "argumentum ad populum"?
viewtopic.php?p=1048524#p1048524

What is Ad hominem?
viewtopic.php?p=1068290#p1068290

What is circular reasoning [begging the question]?
viewtopic.php?p=1027604#p1027604

What is the fallacy of equivocation [first & last] ?
viewtopic.php?p=1020274#p1020274

What is the fallacy of special pleading ?
viewtopic.php?p=1072425#p1072425

What is the fallacy of the consequent?
viewtopic.php?p=1073114#p1073114

What is the fallacy of "false equivalence"?
viewtopic.php?p=1074577#p1074577

What is the fallacy of composition [true christian]?
viewtopic.php?p=1026784#p1026784

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

LOGIC , FALLACIES and ... EVIDENCE