I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

This is true, and it is unfortunate. And Christians who recognize this need to be more vocal about it because it seems to be a misrepresentation of Christianity that the greater religion is becoming known for.

HOWEVER...

I'll ask this same or similar question as many times as it takes: Where in the New Testament does Jesus instruct His followers to act this way (in this context, applying hatred without guilt)?

Note: Many times when I ask this question in different contexts, I know good and well Jesus never asked Christians to commit atrocities in His name. In THIS case, however, I can actually think of a passage or two that would. But the Biblical context is such that Christians are to separate themselves from those who would cause them to sin as well as those who have rejected the good news and have no intention of listening to Christians. Jesus ministered to the dregs of society, and sinners in our world would show that in order to support their misinterpretation of "do not judge," and "do not judge" really has nothing to do with how we typically apply that passage. The truth is that Jesus ministered to those who came to Him seeking freedom from their sinful lives and a second chance. Jesus didn't exactly beg and plead with the unrepentant to change their ways, nor did He endorse the actions of those who came to Him or those who ignored His teachings. Feel free to quote those passages if you care to look them up. One example is "do not throw your pearls to swine."

I work with a guy who was raised Mennonite in san francisco, and later converted to mormonism.

When he tells me things like how wretched it was to ride busses with (gasp) gay people on them, I sort of want to punch him in the balls and tell him to shut his pie hole.

But that would be a career limiting move, so i hold my tongue and control the fist of death.

I think basically that some people have a lot of hatred and intolerance in them that is just looking for a vehicle.

You're right. I was thinking of just the U.S. when I wrote that, because I've never been to Europe, but it really is that bad overseas. Derp.

I remember reading about the Pope's stance on condoms. Another influence of Christianity on South Africa is the 'corrective rape' of lesbians.

A couple of you say that you hate the ideology and not its followers; I think I dislike individual Christians (and individual followers of other religions, too). I personally can't understand why these Christians feel that following their interpretation of Scripture is more important than letting gay couples try to live fulfilling lives, whether or not homosexuality is wrong. Or why (in the U.S., in this case) they still think the government should adhere to Christian values. Or why some of them seem to think that prayer is an acceptable substitute for charity work and activism. ("Oh, it's okay, needy; I PRAYED for you! Teehee!") A lot of worship seems to be about little more than the religious making themselves feel better, without changing much. And they hold themselves higher than non-believers for empty practices and blind faith? I want to ask these people why, if God made so many truths and beneficial technologies discoverable with critical thought, He intended for people to take the Bible literally and shun anybody who doubted it. (Again, I'm talking about the ones who preach blind faith and use fear to influence. I know that many of history's greatest scientists were religious.)

And, of course, the massacres, violence... everything else that was mentioned.

But, as for hating Christianity... I can't find a solid philosophy to hate. There are so many variations... bastardizations... and I blame people for this.

You are unfortunately right about this.

If you want the official Christian position on this sort of thing, all you have to do is read the sort of things that Jesus said about the Pharisees.

OT:

Joshua 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

The Sun does not orbit the Earth, nor does the passage say that the Earth stopped rotating. Whoever wrote the Book of Joshua was lying; and don't give me any crap about "Primitive people being ignorant of celestial mechanics", because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly states: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally God-breathed] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." So, either God wanted to keep His people ignorant, or the person that wrote the Book of Joshua lied.

I Kings 7:23 "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

This verse defines the value of Pi to be exactly 3.

NT:

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

Finally, how did Judas die?

In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So, when it comes to how and when Judas died, at least two people are not telling the truth - they are lying.

Don't forget the two geniologies for Jesus.,

Lying or Mistaken.

ruveyn

Yet despite knowing that the sun does not orbit the earth, and having known this for centuries, we still say that the sun rises. Are we "lying" when we say that?


That isn't crap, it's a valid and correct criticism of your silly theory, and totally debunks it.


In other words, all scripture is morally and spiritually profitable. In what way would this imply the extremely literal interpretation you're pushing?


Don't be silly.

Even today, people say pi "is" 3.14, when we know it much more accurately. I happen to have it memorized to 3.14159265358979, but that isn't pi either. Pi approximated to 1 decimal place is 3, and nothing in the passage implies extreme exactitude. If I think something is going to take me 50 minutes and I tell you it will take an hour, am I "lying" or rounding off?

We are talking about a physical object with approximately circular shape, and the approximate measurements taken of it. That does not constitute a definition of pi.


Zechariah was a minor prophet, and IIRC the minor phrophets were put on the same scroll as Jeremiah, so I believe he would have been referring to that.

Even if I happen to remember incorrectly about that, so what? In what way is something on the order of a typo in a citation "lying".

Most of your examples of "lying" are easily debunked. The ones that remain assume a particularly blind and silly form of literalism.

This is a lie...WHY?


Why is it so implausible? The Christian understanding of God is that He can bring about His divine will through whatever means He so chooses. I can't explain how He'd manipulate a slowing-down of ALL physical forces of nature except the people involved in a battle. If God literally stopped the earth's rotation alone, water and air would continue to move, making Noah's flood look like a gentle spring rain. The only possible explanation is God controlled all elements to bring about an Israelite victory.

The real problem is whether God CAN bring about certain results by stepping into His creation directly, which I think would have had to have happened. This cannot make any sense at all ONLY if one is to assume from the outset that there is not God. Such a view is biased, however.


Ignores that many figures used in measurements and counting are approximations. There are sometimes instances when the word for "thousand" or "hundred" correlates to military divisions rather than exact numbers. "Seven thousand" wouldn't necessarily mean literally 7,000 but rather seven divisions of "a lot of people," likely more than a few hundred, but not necessarily exactly totaling 7,000. 7,000 is also a round number, and there are a number of examples of round numbers in the Bible. It's usually obvious when the writer means EXACTLY a certain number and when some flexibility in estimating approximate numbers is meant.


This really is a tough one.

Not really that many Christians understand that the A.D. calendar is about 4 or 5 years off, but it's not unknown to Bible scholars. I used to have a KJV (for some odd reason the only one my mom believed in at the time...bleh...) that included actual dates for events in the margin, and it even listed the birth at 5 B.C. Also, there was THE well-known census Quirinius took that you mentioned. Luke mentions the census at the birth of Jesus was "the first census." Your census was likely a later census that might have had a different significance. We may not have all the facts, outside the Bible, that we need to determine EXACTLY what happened, but there's no reason to suggest that it's a "lie."


Evidence, please.


Doesn't mean silver wasn't a tradable commodity, though. Depending on the weight of silver against a temple standard, 30 pieces of silver might have been a respectable amount of money. I'm not expert, here, but it's not implausible.


I have no idea what you're referencing in regards to Matthew. I read through the account of Judas meeting with the high priests and saw no reference to the prophets. I simply don't have enough time in the day to run down what someone else thinks is a Bible contradiction. I have, after all, only read the Bible cover-to-cover ONCE, and am currently working my way through the "minor" prophets. You'll have to better than simply "Matthew said..."


They are BOTH true. The Holy Land has mountains, rocky terrain, and cliffs. He simply could have hung himself at the edge of a cliff, the tree branch or the rope broke at some point after his death, and the rocks tore him open. Again, no problems here.


Paul said... And where exactly did Paul say that? And who says there weren't 12 people present when Jesus appeared to them? Even if there WERE only 11 present, they were all that remained of the 12, sans 1. No problem here.


The key word being WAS. But I've already explained that in the last response.


"They" who? I have mixed feelings about Judas, to be honest. He had nothing to gain from repentance, so I tend to think he MIGHT not exactly have been counted out. There is other evidence from the Bible to the contrary, though. If we exclude Judas from the picture, then Jesus was only referring to those who persevered in their faith. Judas did, after all, have a successor.


Not really. But nice try!

More...

1. How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? 2Sam 23:8 ≠ 1Chron 11:11
2. Was Abraham justified by faith or by works? Rom 4:2 ≠ Jam 2:21
3. How many sons did Abraham have? Heb 11:17, Gen 22:2 ≠ Gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22
4. Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? 1Sam 22:20, 23:6 ≠ 2Sam 8:17, 1Chron 18:16, 24:6
5. Who was Abijam’s mother? 1Ki 15:1-2 ≠ 2Chron 13:1-2
6. How were Abijam and Asa related? 1Ki 15:8 ≠ 1Ki 15:1-2, 15:9-10
7. How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab’s house? 1Sam 7:1-2, 10:24 ≠ 2Sam 6:2-3, Acts 13:21
8. How old was Abram when Ishmael was born? Gen 16:16 ≠ Acts 7:2-4, Gen 11:26, 11:32
9. How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab’s house? 1Sam 7:1-2, 10:24 ≠ 2Sam 6:2-3, Acts 13:21
10. When did Absalom rebel against David? 2Sam 15:7 ≠ 2Sam 5:4

In each of these ten instances, you will find at least two verses that contradict each other. Which of the following assumptions makes the most sense?

a. All of the verses are lies, making their contradictory natures irrelevant.
b. The verses to the right of the inequality sign ("≠") are true, and those to the left are lies.
c. The verses to the left of the inequality sign ("≠") are true, and those to the right are lies.
d. All of the verses are true, in spite of their contradictory natures.
e. Either b or c, but not both, as the case may be for any one of the ten questions.

Go read your Bible, learn what it says, learn where it contradicts itself, and stop making up excuses for it.

> Link to an honest Bible-based resource <

Or complementary. A "legal" genealogy according to Hebrew tradition won't account for adoptions or Levirate marriages. Neither will it account for generational gaps. A difference between two different genealogy might be accounted for by either filling in the gaps or showing a true, biological descent.

Most of the "Christians" I've encountered in my life aren't very nice people. I've run into many who have been extremely nasty to me because I practice a faith different from theirs and because of my more liberal opinions.

I find it hard to like or respect the people who hate me. Perhaps that's just me though.

I do know that not all Christians are like that; I've met a few who are good people. I guess the good ones would be your "genuine Christians" but, where I live, they seem to be a minority group.

That is so, so .... Pharisaic.

ruveyn

Well at least you've finally come up with something relevant. If there was a contradiction here, that would be a problem.

However, the very next verse in James says "You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did." Sometimes taking individual sentences out of context destroys the meaning.


"His mother's name was Maacah, daughter of Abishalom." vs. "His mother's name was Maacah, a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah." The word 'daughter' in the second sentence could be read as 'granddaughter'.

Are you aware that most daughters are daughters to both a mother and a father, who usually have different names? Are you aware that people sometimes change their names, like when Abram changed his name to Abraham?

But let's say there was a "contradiction", and that 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles fundamentally disagreed on who Abijam's mother Maacah was descended from. So what? Why should I consider the parentage of this particular guy's mother a burning theological or religious issue?


Except for the faith or works question, I have no idea why you think any of these would matter. If you can really prove that there is something that's the equivalent of a typo in the Bible somewhere, why should anyone care?

There are parts of the Bible that matter more than others. There are famous verses about love and kindness and not being arrogant that are worth more than a hundred thousand verses on trivial details about the names of someone's mothers' parents.

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of Gawd (sic) there can be no typos.

ruveyn

Actually, I think that the definition of inerrant used by inerrantists would allow for typos. But you're ignoring all the non-inerrantists out there, such as myself.

Picked up on that, did you?

The Pharisees weren't ALL bad. I think they rigorously kept the law, and I think the main problem anybody ever had with them is that rigorously keeping oneself separated from sinners also keeps one from effectively ministering to the needs of those who do not wish to remain in a sinful life.

Our understanding of the life of Messiah is that in all things the law was fulfilled. That minor detail of being from "the house of David" is an important one. Two genealogies that differ just show the bigger picture. If every single OT genealogy was a complete one, the genealogies themselves would probably fill a volume as big as, if not bigger than, the combined OT and NT. Think about it. Can you trace your line all the way back to Judah without skipping ANY generation?