Luke 6:22-23: Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

[boatsnguitars]

Luke 6:22-23:

“Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”

The verse makes it clear that Christians will be hated and excluded because they will be associated with Evil - because of Jesus.

Christians might say, "Yes, associated with Evil, but we're the good guys!" But, Jesus must have known his ideas were hateful. He must have known he was preaching hate, or why think his followers would be hated?

Let's see why Christians are considered Evil.
Biblical Teachings:
Interpretations of certain biblical passages, contribute to perceptions of exclusivity and judgmental attitudes, leading to vilification.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Homosexuality):
These passages contain prohibitions against homosexual behavior and are often cited in discussions about LGBTQ+ rights. Some verses that contribute to discrimination and exclusion:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (Women's Roles):
This passage addresses the role of women in the church and has been a source of controversy, with debates over whether it supports or restricts women's leadership roles within religious institutions.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Rape and Marriage):
Critics may point to this passage as problematic due to its prescription for a rapist to marry their victim, raising ethical concerns about the treatment of survivors and the endorsement of such practices.

Psalm 137:9 ("Babylonian Babies" verse):
This verse, which speaks of dashing Babylonian infants against rocks, is sometimes cited to highlight the apparent brutality in certain Old Testament passages, leading to questions about the morality of such narratives.

Exodus 21:20-21 (Treatment of Slaves):
Passages discussing the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament have been criticized for not explicitly condemning slavery and, in some cases, appearing to regulate it.

Matthew 10:34-36 (Division):
This passage, where Jesus speaks about bringing a sword and division, can be controversial when interpreted as promoting conflict, particularly when applied to interfaith or intra-faith relations.

Ephesians 6:5-9 (Slavery and Masters):
Similar to Old Testament passages, New Testament verses that seem to regulate the relationship between slaves and masters have been criticized for not outright condemning slavery.

Numbers 31:17-18 (Treatment of Midianite Women):
This passage describes the killing of male children and the sparing of female children during warfare, which raises moral questions and concerns about the treatment of non-combatant populations.

Genesis 19:1-11 (Sodom and Gomorrah):
This passage is often cited in discussions about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, contributing to debates around the Bible's stance on homosexuality.

Historical Ecclesiastical Misconduct:
Instances of historical misconduct by the Church, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the clergy abuse scandals, have left lasting negative impressions on public perception.
Did Jesus prophesize this, yet say nothing to his followers to avoid it?

Resistance to Social Change:
Resistance or perceived resistance to social and cultural changes, led to criticism and vilification.

Civil Rights Movement:
Many Christian groups resisted the Civil Rights Movement, particularly during the mid-20th century. Some argued against desegregation and equal rights for African Americans based on perceived biblical justifications. The Christians arguing for desegregation were often Black, or Liberal (traditionally vilified by the Church).

Women's Liberation Movement:
Christian denominations have resisted aspects of the women's liberation movement, opposing women's rights, gender equality, and the expansion of roles for women in the church and society.

Reproductive Rights:
Christians, particularly within conservative branches of the faith, have traditionally resisted changes related to reproductive rights, such as access to contraception, abortion rights, and comprehensive sex education. (By Consrevative, we usually mean non-Liberal, non-luke warm Christians who adhere to every jot and tittle of the Bible).

LGBTQ+ Rights:
Most Christian denominations and groups have resisted advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, including marriage equality and protections against discrimination, often citing scriptural interpretations that view homosexuality as incompatible with

Scientific Advancements:
Throughout history, some Christians resisted certain scientific advancements that challenged traditional theological views, such as the heliocentric model of the solar system, the theory of evolution, and more recent debates over issues like climate change.

End-of-Life Issues:
Christians, particularly those in conservative circles, have sometimes resisted changes related to end-of-life issues, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, based on ethical considerations rooted in religious beliefs.

Secularization and Separation of Church and State:
Many Christians have resisted secularization trends and the separation of church and state, advocating for a more direct influence of religious values on governance and public policies.

Cultural Changes:
Christians have, at times, resisted broader cultural changes that are perceived as contrary to traditional values, including shifts in entertainment, fashion, and popular culture.

Environmental Stewardship:
While many Christian groups emphasize the importance of environmental stewardship, there have been instances where resistance to certain environmental policies stems from concerns about economic impact or conflicting interpretations of biblical teachings on human dominion.

Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation:
Many Christians have resisted efforts towards interfaith dialogue and cooperation, particularly with religions that have historically been viewed as competitors or adversaries.

Dogmatism and Intolerance:
The perception of dogmatism and intolerance towards differing beliefs or lifestyles can contribute to the vilification of Christianity. After all, one of the worst things you can do as a Christian is be tolerant of things you call sin, and to waver in your strong, Christian faith.

Missionary Activities and Cultural Imperialism:
Criticisms of missionary activities and perceptions of cultural imperialism contribute to the vilification of Christianity, especially in the context of colonial history.

Sexual Morality Debates:
Debates around sexual morality, including issues like abortion and contraception, may lead to vilification when Christian perspectives clash with broader societal views.

Political Activism:
Involvement in political activism, particularly when aligned with specific controversial policies or candidates, lead to polarization and criticism.

Proselytization Efforts:
Aggressive or perceived aggressive proselytization efforts are viewed negatively, leading to criticism and vilification.

Cultural Insensitivity:
Instances of cultural insensitivity, where Christian practices clash with or dismiss local customs, contribute to negative perceptions.

Hypocrisy:
Publicized instances of hypocrisy among prominent Christian figures or institutions can undermine the credibility of the faith and lead to vilification.

Religious Exclusivity:
Belief in the exclusivity of salvation through Christianity is viewed as intolerant, contributing to negative perceptions of the faith.


Now, I'm sure someone will shrug and say, "Well, that's all humanity! Other groups are just as bad!"

Maybe, but they also don't have a passage in their Holy Text that gives them license to be hated and then say that you'll be rewarded for it...

So, why are Christians vilified?

[TRANSPONDER]

I prefer to do logical rather than moral arguments, but the fact is that Christianity claims the moral high ground and it really can't. Not even with Works, because in any religion, society or organisation, there are selfless people who just want to help and those who use the thing as cover for their own selfish activities. And certainly not with the Bible. Not even Jews follow that OT stuff, though they keep up the minutiae of dress and rules, but don't follow all the instructions and wouldn't even if they did bulldoze the Golden Mosque and rebuild the Temple.

The NT tries to be nice as pie, often to an absurd degree. Our pal 1213 used an excuse that Jesus wasn't on earth as why he shouldn't give all his stuff to the poor apart from which he would then be poor and they'd have to give it all back. It is not so much that the NT rules are immoral (though some are - like follow the religious - group and shun your family) but unworkable, and our pal did a good job of showing that. He wouldn't and couldn't do it and had to find an excuse.

So the Bible and Christianity fails on the moral High ground (and someday I'll explain why I think Tuo Quoque is valid in countering moral superiority claims) both in practice and in teachings. This has implications, not just for the Bible being obsolete and WHY it becomes obsolete, but also for the reactionary pushback against all progress, from human transplants and stem cell research to race and gender rights (which I have always supported even if it has now become a hate cult).

The thing there is - if people have a special relationship with God, and He communicates with them, why the heck isn't he updating the teachings to keep pace with human moral codes? Either they fight against social advance or they quietly creep along behind and pretend it was always what they were doing.

They may try to claim Christianity was behind emancipation, which it never was. Only in the 1860's everyone was Christian, so of course some were doing the underground railway, but others were fighting it and using the Bible to justify it, too.

And in the 1960's race rights used preaching style to deliver the message, but religion had never preached it. It was human rights and even species identity equality that made that case, even if they dressed it up in religious words.

But there is no such excuse now and enough irreligionists are around that it is clear - religion pulls back and secularism storms ahead and religion either tries to play catch - up or it gets Left Behind.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
I do not know that Luke 6 , is specific to this phenomena, but it is a good illustration of the disconnect between orthodox Christians and common sense

In essence ,and TRANSPONDER, alludes to it, it is a cult of Water and Fire from start to finish.

Revelation 21:

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

In other words "You others can go to Hell!"....they cannot be accused of ambiguity.

The sad fact is that this adopted theology insists on this response to the non-compliant.Water will always quench fire without being impacted itself. Water is for washing, it is for planting a new Eden. Fire's primary function is as a disposal agent. That is this pagan mindset enshrined in the modern religious doctrines of the Abrahamic Faith's.That is the greatest dilemma of our time.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
The perversion that is Christian ( Water/Fire ) conceptual theology has come from earlier sources like Zoroastrianism, where this is the insight

"Fire is considered a medium through which spiritual insight and wisdom are gained, and water is considered the source of that wisdom."

The last time I saw anything positive said about fire in the Bible was Moses's burning bush. Correct me if I am incorrect.
What's the big deal. How you look at things is how you respond to them. If you have special glasses, your perception will be distorted. The IDF are still killing Amalekites based on a decree by their President ,who stands on , and speaks from, a position of higher moral authority.(apparently)

I was always told, never play with fire, but would I listen!

Matthew 3:11

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

There you have it a Lazer-gun straight from the fire God himself.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "But there is no such excuse now and enough irreligionists are around that it is clear - religion pulls back and secularism storms ahead and religion either tries to play catch - up or it gets Left Behind."

Yes, the writing is on the wall for this dinosaur theology. I agree with the opening post that Christianity is theologically confrontational,  but not in a good way.
God is on a mission to sort out dissent, once and for all , and there is benefit to be had for those who help this along. Even the most basic grifter politician on the planet could come up with this.

[The Nice Centurion]

The thing there is - if people have a special relationship with God, and He communicates with them, why the heck isn't he updating the teachings to keep pace with human moral codes? Either they fight against social advance or they quietly creep along behind and pretend it was always what they were doing.

Why the heck wont you join the LDS then?

Their doctrine of faith allows them to update to modern human moral code all they want.

In his time Joseph Smith received a holy vision from the mormon god:" Negros are subhuman 'cause black angels joined Satan during world war in heaven. Them may never gain priesthood in the church and will maximum be servants in heaven."

(Nothing to do with then current situation that Yankee Joseph was going to build his church in several southern states and no longer wished to be eyed with suspicion by the slave states!)

But in 1978 the then current LDS prophet received a holy counter-vision that allowed blacks to become LDS priests, and described them as not so bad after all.

LDS doctrine of faith officially allows every living prophet to spit upon all orders and visions of every dead prophet

[boatsnguitars]

I prefer to do logical rather than moral arguments, but the fact is that Christianity claims the moral high ground and it really can't. Not even with Works, because in any religion, society or organisation, there are selfless people who just want to help and those who use the thing as cover for their own selfish activities. And certainly not with the Bible. Not even Jews follow that OT stuff, though they keep up the minutiae of dress and rules, but don't follow all the instructions and wouldn't even if they did bulldoze the Golden Mosque and rebuild the Temple.

The NT tries to be nice as pie, often to an absurd degree. Our pal 1213 used an excuse that Jesus wasn't on earth as why he shouldn't give all his stuff to the poor apart from which he would then be poor and they'd have to give it all back. It is not so much that the NT rules are immoral (though some are - like follow the religious - group and shun your family) but unworkable, and our pal did a good job of showing that. He wouldn't and couldn't do it and had to find an excuse.

So the Bible and Christianity fails on the moral High ground (and someday I'll explain why I think Tuo Quoque is valid in countering moral superiority claims) both in practice and in teachings. This has implications, not just for the Bible being obsolete and WHY it becomes obsolete, but also for the reactionary pushback against all progress, from human transplants and stem cell research to race and gender rights (which I have always supported even if it has now become a hate cult).

The thing there is - if people have a special relationship with God, and He communicates with them, why the heck isn't he updating the teachings to keep pace with human moral codes? Either they fight against social advance or they quietly creep along behind and pretend it was always what they were doing.

They may try to claim Christianity was behind emancipation, which it never was. Only in the 1860's everyone was Christian, so of course some were doing the underground railway, but others were fighting it and using the Bible to justify it, too.

And in the 1960's race rights used preaching style to deliver the message, but religion had never preached it. It was human rights and even species identity equality that made that case, even if they dressed it up in religious words.

But there is no such excuse now and enough irreligionists are around that it is clear - religion pulls back and secularism storms ahead and religion either tries to play catch - up or it gets Left Behind.

True, logical arguments are better, but we are emotional, moral agents and we can't deny this part of our nature - especially, as you so intelligently point out - when there is a group that claims to be the paradigm of moral values, and that "without God, I'd rape and murder!" (As some of them rape and murder, and others hide them from the law).

[1213]

Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

I think it is weird to call people who remain in truth jerks. But, I think all people have even without the Bible right to be "jerks". Do you think people would need a permission to be "jerks", especially when a jerk seems to mean a person who just happens to disagree with you? I think people should have more tolerance for different opinions and not instantly call them jerks, if they don't accept the same opinions.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
I will follow up the 1213 suggestion , in an attempt to broaden the narrative.
We are not intentionally obtuse, we are disjointed and confused. The natural response is to ' latch' on to something. That is what we do with religion. That is it's origins and it's motivations. It then becomes a lava lamp of theological machinations. Go back to basics.
- we are all human
- nobody asked to be here
- it is tough

Take these poor bewildered wretches mentioned in my Revelation quote and compound their difficulties exponentially.
"
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,."

Place them in an evolutionary cannon of accelerated awareness and see what happens. Our cognitive abilities, our emotional capabilities and our general grounding has all been swept away.
The dynamic of the troop is insufficient beyond the jungle' perimeter. We do not know how to restore cohesion among ourselves. Therefore we have been trying this theology tingy.

Here is one of it's pitfalls .
The net of a fascist regime forever tightens.
"and idolaters, and all liars,.,"
A weed is a flower that nobody likes and a liar and an idolterer is someone who does not speak your truth.

[boatsnguitars]

Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

I think it is weird to call people who remain in truth jerks. But, I think all people have even without the Bible right to be "jerks". Do you think people would need a permission to be "jerks", especially when a jerk seems to mean a person who just happens to disagree with you? I think people should have more tolerance for different opinions and not instantly call them jerks, if they don't accept the same opinions.

Case in point, I suppose. Thanks for stepping up!