Church Book Declared Hate Speech

[daveza]

You shall not murder

What happened to thou shall not kill - oh, yes we needed to change it to legitimise the death penalty.

 

[porchrat]

Romans 13:8-10:*Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.*For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."*Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

So there is a contradiction then.

 

[porchrat]

Of course it is all about interpretation.

Oh good so you agree that there are other valid interpretations. Weird that you concede this point and yet make assertions about litmus tests based upon the "truth" followed by a dismissal of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy based upon that assertion.

That is why the other Rabbis asked Rabbi Jesus, what his yoke is, i.e. what the greatest commandment according to him is. Every Rabbi had a "yoke" whereby they interpreted and understood the Scriptures (the old testament as we know it).

Jesus declaring that it is love, shows His disciples (followers) the way they should understand God and His commandments.

What this mean is often that the Old Testament only starts making sense when you understand the New Testament teachings of Jesus which he gave us all through His apostles (followers).

The Old Testament doesn't make sense based upon love. You don't kill people that work on the Sabbath out of love. These laws only makes sense as a set of man-made laws that by today's moral standards are morally indefensible.

They are certainly not the laws one would expect from an all-loving benevolent deity.

Based on what I have just written, the Bible doesn't command us to commit evil.

Now, the Old testament is often difficult to understand, because it speaks firstly to an ancient people (who no longer exist). It also speaks about them, their history, customs, laws, etc and how their God led them through an uncivilised world where they were often the weakest nation.

Not their God. Your God. It is the same God. You can't sweep the morally repugnant things he instructed those people to do under the rug. Those were your God's commands.

Israel were Yahweh's (God's) people. God made a promise to Abraham, that he will give him an offspring (Israel) as numerous as the stars in the sky. God, in making this covenant with Abraham, had an obligation to provide for Israel, to protect them, to redeem them, to bring them to the promised land.

It is only in reading the Old Testament in the correct context, where you can come to understand why God gave them commands to kill other nations. It was a dog eat dog world and either Israel killed and destroyed other nations, or they destroyed Israel.

No there are instances of total genocide happening. Children being slaughtered for example and the women at the right age to be worth something as property taken as slaves. Taking women as slaves and murdering children has nothing to do with protecting yourself.

Forcing your beliefs onto others and killing those that don't wish to hold to your beliefs is not about protecting yourself.

Israel also had to be kept pure in order to stop it from imploding, therefore the law was given through Moses. Israel's very own constitution in how they should live and act in order to remain pure before God.

The same argument could be made for outlawing interracial marriage. Keep your ethnic group pure. It is repulsive. Your God supported ethnicism. I see this as evil. I'm surprised you don't.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I certainly think the random acts of mass slaughter he commanded his followers to do were pretty evil. Or when he killed thousands/millions all by himself.

 

[daveza]

I certainly think the random acts of mass slaughter he commanded his followers to do were pretty evil. Or when he killed thousands/millions all by himself.

The entire world at one stage, apart from the boat family Noah.

 

[smallearth]

Just for the record, the Bible never commands anyone to commit evil. The "founder" of Christianity, Jesus, said: the greatest commandment is to love God and to love others. What that means is that all other "lesser" commandments need to be interpreted through the lens of love.

Wrong. The Law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. There are no commandments one is obliged to 'look at through the lens of love'.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Wrong. The Law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. There are no commandments one is obliged to 'look at through the lens of love'.

What about Matthew 5:18?

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

 

[RanzB]

Just for the record, the Bible never commands anyone to commit evil.

Just for the record, I don't hold to the bible's definition of 'evil'. I hold myself to a much higher standard than that, and that's what my comment is based on.

As for your other nonsense, you are not the judge of what is valid or not valid. Just the fact that there are so many interpretations of that book is proof enough that it's pointless using it as a moral code of any kind.

 

[Johnone]

Oh good so you agree that there are other valid interpretations. Weird that you concede this point and yet make assertions about litmus tests based upon the "truth".

Never said there are other valid interpretations. It shows you are not reading or making an effort to understand. The only valid interpretation of everything is through love. That is Jesus' yoke. In other words, it is His key to interpreting Scriptures.

A Christian who doesn't love and act out of love is no more a Christian then an atheist who believes in God.

As for the rest of your post which I don't feel like quoting, because I am typing on my cellphone...

It shows you are not making an effort to see things in context. You speak about modern day morals, why? These are ancient people living in an ancient world, and God speaks to them in their ancient setting. Should God speak to them about motorcars and aeroplanes also?

From the moment God led them out of Egypt, Israel was almost always at war. If Israel didn't destroy other nations then Israel would've been destroyed. And yes, woman and children were also killed. I cannot say I understand everything, why it had to happen like this, but at least I am making an effort to understand, whereas you are just using the bible to attack a God and religion you don't believe in.

I also don't understand why God sent His only Son to die on a cross for the sin of the world. But He did it out of love, and that is good enough for me and a myriad of other people.

If you wish to understand God then try to understand who He is, His attributes, characteristics.

In the end, you and I will never fully understand, but at least we can try. Why don't you look for the "positive" things in the Bible? Why don't you try to understand what salvation through Jesus means? Why Christianity and the church as it should be is actually a good thing and a blessing to this world.

Maybe you will stop having knee-jerk reactions whenever you hear and see "god" being mentioned. Maybe you'll become more enlightened. Maybe you'll see your modern day morals are mostly based on the teachings of an ancient Rabbi called Jesus.

And maybe you'll see that their God is my God is our God and He actually loves us more than we can ever know.

 

[daveza]

Why don't you look for the "positive" things in the Bible?

Perhaps because the negative things are the ones used to attack sections of our population.

How hard is it to understand that non-believers have no problem with any religion - until that religion imposes its demands and requirements on non-believers.

 

[RanzB]

Never said there are other valid interpretations. It shows you are not reading or making an effort to understand. The only valid interpretation of everything is through love. That is Jesus' yoke. In other words, it is His key to interpreting Scriptures.

A Christian who doesn't love and act out of love is no more a Christian then an atheist who believes in God.

As for the rest of your post which I don't feel like quoting, because I am typing on my cellphone...

It shows you are not making an effort to see things in context. You speak about modern day morals, why? These are ancient people living in an ancient world, and God speaks to them in their ancient setting. Should God speak to them about motorcars and aeroplanes also?

From the moment God led them out of Egypt, Israel was almost always at war. If Israel didn't destroy other nations then Israel would've been destroyed. And yes, woman and children were also killed. I cannot say I understand everything, why it had to happen like this, but at least I am making an effort to understand, whereas you are just using the bible to attack a God and religion you don't believe in.

I also don't understand why God sent His only Son to die on a cross for the sin of the world. But He did it out of love, and that is good enough for me and a myriad of other people.

If you wish to understand God then try to understand who He is, His attributes, characteristics.

In the end, you and I will never fully understand, but at least we can try. Why don't you look for the "positive" things in the Bible? Why don't you try to understand what salvation through Jesus means? Why Christianity and the church as it should be is actually a good thing and a blessing to this world.

Maybe you will stop having knee-jerk reactions whenever you hear and see "god" being mentioned. Maybe you'll become more enlightened. Maybe you'll see your modern day morals are mostly based on the teachings of an ancient Rabbi called Jesus.

And maybe you'll see that their God is my God is our God and He actually loves us more than we can ever know.

The problem is that you've come to your conclusion before actually "understanding" anything.

Don't feel bad, you're the same as millions of others.

 

[Johnone]

Perhaps because the negative things are the ones used to attack sections of our population.

How hard is it to understand that non-believers have no problem with any religion - until that religion imposes its demands and requirements on non-believers.

It isn't hard to understand. I understand fully. I have also been in situations where demands were imposed on me which I didn't agree with.

But religion will never disappear. Nor wil anti-religious sentiment. Nor will politics or fanatacism, etc disappear. It seems to be in human nature to demand and expect others to be like you. You find it in religion, and you will find it in politics. So we just have to deal with it and choose a better way without hating or destroying each other.

Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. We Christians want to see the world saved. Not destroyed. We want to see peace. Want to see people full of joy. We are not your enemies.

There are fanatics who give christianity a bad name. But they are not following in the footsteps of the Saviour. Try to understand the Christianity Jesus gave us, you will find we are not so bad as some make us. In fact you will find your values and dreams are often the same as Christians and God.

 

[porchrat]

Never said there are other valid interpretations. It shows you are not reading or making an effort to understand.

I have to disagree with you there. You and I just now demonstrated a contradiction allowing for 2 different interpretations.

So much for a cut and dried litmus test.

A Christian who doesn't love and act out of love is no more a Christian then an atheist who believes in God.

A what now?

It shows you are not making an effort to see things in context. You speak about modern day morals, why? These are ancient people living in an ancient world, and God speaks to them in their ancient setting. Should God speak to them about motorcars and aeroplanes also?

I speak about modern day morals because your deity is supposed to be all-good rigidly defining concepts of good and evil. Instead I see a deity bound by the social mores of the time. You yourself admit this. What your deity deems good and what he deems evil is reliant upon context. There are context for your deity in which killing infants is good. If that is the case I consider myself morally superior to your deity.

From the moment God led them out of Egypt, Israel was almost always at war. If Israel didn't destroy other nations then Israel would've been destroyed. And yes, woman and children were also killed. I cannot say I understand everything, why it had to happen like this, but at least I am making an effort to understand, whereas you are just using the bible to attack a God and religion you don't believe in.

It is good that you don't understand how it is morally justified. If you thought it was morally justifiable I would consider you to be some kind of twisted monster. The problem is you just assume it is morally justifiable with no good reason.

Why shouldn't I criticise a being that deems murdering infants to be something good? That is worthy of criticism. :wtf:

You see this as an attack on your religion. It is just my moral stance on the issue. I don't consider the murdering of infants to be morally justifiable. The only time I could understand it is if that infant had some sort of congenital disease or something with no known cure and nothing but days of agonising torture before the inevitable release of death to look forward to. Then that killing is a merciful act to end pointless suffering... but to commit genocide. To murder an innocent infant that in no way is capable of harming you? I can't support that. I doubt you can either. Yet you sweep it under the rug in your mind because you cannot entertain the idea that your deity condoned something morally indefensible.

In the end, you and I will never fully understand, but at least we can try.

This is contradictory to your claims of a definitive litmus test for the "truth" and the subsequent dismissal of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Why don't you look for the "positive" things in the Bible?

I am well aware of the good stuff in the bible. Sure most of it is stolen from ways of thinking that existed long before Jesus arrived on the scene but at least it repeats those sentiments. The thing is I'm not blind to the horrors and evils contained within the text either. I am responding to your claims that those evils and horrors don't exist. I can't respond to those claims by pointing out the good stuff.

Why don't you try to understand what salvation through Jesus means? Why Christianity and the church as it should be is actually a good thing and a blessing to this world

That is just how you think it should be. Like it or not your bible is filled with instructions to kill homosexuals, atheists, followers of other religions and a host of other groups. Then there is the slavery, rape and infanticide... among others. The rampant homophobia we see in the western world is founded, for the large part, in Christianity. I don't consider that to be a good thing or a blessing to this world.

For example: do you think homosexuality is a good thing? I'm betting your answer is no. Homophobia is not a blessing to this world.

Maybe you will stop having knee-jerk reactions whenever you hear and see "god" being mentioned. Maybe you'll become more enlightened. Maybe you'll see your modern day morals are mostly based on the teachings of an ancient Rabbi called Jesus.

Which in turn were largely stolen from those who came before. Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule.

I'm thankful that Jesus seemed far less horrific than God the Father. The big man was a psychopath that OKed some very evil acts. The problem is that that big man is your deity too and you need to acknowledge the things he condoned and justify them morally if you wish to assert that there is no evil in that bible.

 

[Johnone]

The problem is that you've come to your conclusion before actually "understanding" anything.

Don't feel bad, you're the same as millions of others.

Your judgemental post presumes a lot. I use to be an atheist. I made an effort to understand and changed my ways.

Pride and arrogance will destroy a man. I write this not to attack you, but to point out, the road you are heading on leads to destruction.

 

[porchrat]

Your judgemental post presumes a lot. I use to be an atheist. I made an effort to understand and changed my ways.

Pride and arrogance will destroy a man. I write this not to attack you, but to point out, the road you are heading on leads to destruction.

LOL @ the guy claiming to know the truth and to have a Christian litmus test implying that others are arrogant.

 

[daveza]

We want to see peace. Want to see people full of joy. We are not your enemies.

Then leave those alone who differ from you.

Stop campaigning against abortion, gay marriage etc, then those who do not share your beliefs will have nothing to complain about.

 

[Johnone]

I have to disagree with you there. You and I just now demonstrated a contradiction allowing for 2 different interpretations.

So much for a cut and dried litmus test.


A what now?



I speak about modern day morals because your deity is supposed to be all-good rigidly defining concepts of good and evil. Instead I see a deity bound by the social mores of the time. You yourself admit this. What your deity deems good and what he deems evil is reliant upon context. There are context for your deity in which killing infants is good. If that is the case I consider myself morally superior to your deity.



It is good that you don't understand how it is morally justified. If you thought it was morally justifiable I would consider you to be some kind of twisted monster. The problem is you just assume it is morally justifiable with no good reason.

Why shouldn't I criticise a being that deems murdering infants to be something good? That is worthy of criticism. :wtf:

You see this as an attack on your religion. It is just my moral stance on the issue. I don't consider the murdering of infants to be morally justifiable. The only time I could understand it is if that infant had some sort of congenital disease or something with no known cure and nothing but days of agonising torture before the inevitable release of death to look forward to. Then that killing is a merciful act to end pointless suffering... but to commit genocide. To murder an innocent infant that in no way is capable of harming you? I can't support that. I doubt you can either. Yet you sweep it under the rug in your mind because you cannot entertain the idea that your deity condoned something morally indefensible.



This is contradictory to your claims of a definitive litmus test for the "truth" and the subsequent dismissal of the No True Scotsman fallacy.



I am well aware of the good stuff in the bible. Sure most of it is stolen from ways of thinking that existed long before Jesus arrived on the scene but at least it repeats those sentiments. The thing is I'm not blind to the horrors and evils contained within the text either. I am responding to your claims that those evils and horrors don't exist. I can't respond to those claims by pointing out the good stuff.


That is just how you think it should be. Like it or not your bible is filled with instructions to kill homosexuals, atheists, followers of other religions and a host of other groups. Then there is the slavery, rape and infanticide... among others. The rampant homophobia we see in the western world is founded, for the large part, in Christianity. I don't consider that to be a good thing or a blessing to this world.

For example: do you think homosexuality is a good thing? I'm betting your answer is no. Homophobia is not a blessing to this world.



Which in turn were largely stolen from those who came before. Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule.

I'm thankful that Jesus seemed far less horrific than God the Father. The big man was a psychopath that OKed some very evil acts. The problem is that that big man is your deity too and you need to acknowledge the things he condoned and justify them morally if you wish to assert that there is no evil in that bible.

I still disagree with you that there are various allowable interpretations. Only one kind of interpretation is valid, the one of love as Jesus taught. Love is the fulfilment of the law. To try to please God in any other way accept through love is invalid. Thus, a christian must love. It is non-negotionable.

I do agree with you that the OT contains many thing I don't fully understand and which appear repulsive to modern day man. The slaughtering of animals for sacrifice also seem repulsive for me. I do not deny nor defend why it happened so. But I do try to understand. And in hope I will one day fully understand.

Jesus commands us to love one another. That is the essence of christianity and that is what we seek to do. Even love homosexuals.

Maybe you and I will never be in agreement. But please understand, we follow Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament. Maybe you can be upset with the Jews over the things in the OT. (J/k)

 

[Johnone]

LOL @ the guy claiming to know the truth and to have a Christian litmus test implying that others are arrogant.

What I have written is Christianity 101, as taught for 2000 years. If that makes me arrogant then so be it.

 

[Johnone]

Then leave those alone who differ from you.

Stop campaigning against abortion, gay marriage etc, then those who do not share your beliefs will have nothing to complain about.

I personally have never campaigned for any of those things. Nor do I impose my views on politics and the world in general. Those who don't know Jesus can't follow His ways, so I can't judge people or force them to do things my way when tjey don't know the way.

This is the problem however: judging all people based on the actions of some people. I am actually against Christians doing political campaigns, and thereby focussing on the world's faults instead of providing the Solution.

 

[daveza]

What I have written is Christianity 101, as taught for 2000 years. If that makes me arrogant then so be it.

Christianity 101 as taught by over 40,000 denominations who all interpret it differently.