|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 20:04:25 GMT
Great, now show me even one historical perspective that posits that Napolean was born in New Zealand, or Einstein, in Nigeria. That gross distortion of known history is not what I'm referring to, and you know it. It is more subtle interpretations, or ones from different perspectives, not overt lying, as your example suggests. Claiming that Christianity is unparalleled as a religious belief in its atrocities is straight up wrong, but you're welcome to try to support the claim...you know, with facts and data. “The more you live in the minds of the Romans, and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. There’s a kind of innocent quality about it, nobody really questions it…Caesar is by some accounts slaughtering a million Gaul’s and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career and far from feeling in anyway embarrassed about this, he’s promoting it, and when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifying alien world and the more you look at it, the more you realize that it is built on systematic exploitation… In almost every way, this is a world that is unspeakably cruel to our way of thinking and this worried me more and more.” - Historian Tom Holland Please, Mr. History, what religion caused more death and suffering than Christianity in the last 2000 years. Even in just the 20th century, you Christians were atrocious beasts. link. You do not accept this as part of your heritage? How convenient for you. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 20:39:27 GMT
Claiming that Christianity is unparalleled as a religious belief in its atrocities is straight up wrong, but you're welcome to try to support the claim...you know, with facts and data. “The more you live in the minds of the Romans, and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. There’s a kind of innocent quality about it, nobody really questions it…Caesar is by some accounts slaughtering a million Gaul’s and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career and far from feeling in anyway embarrassed about this, he’s promoting it, and when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifying alien world and the more you look at it, the more you realize that it is built on systematic exploitation… In almost every way, this is a world that is unspeakably cruel to our way of thinking and this worried me more and more.” - Historian Tom Holland Please, Mr. History, what religion caused more death and suffering than Christianity in the last 2000 years. Even in just the 20th century, you Christians were atrocious beasts. link. You do not accept this as part of your heritage? How convenient for you. Freon Oh...you mean only in the last 2000 years!? I thought you meant ever. So: 1. You take for granted the positive impact that Christianity had on the (western) world that lifted us from the barbarism described by Tom Holland (above). Thus, the atrocities prior to "the last 2,000 years" are conveniently ignored. 2. Atrocities committed by people calling themselves Christians is eclipsed by those perpetrated by totalitarian states that officially claimed to be irreligious (in the last century alone). 3. Appealing to Godwin's Law does not work, because despite the deplorable collusion the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis, the Nazis were not at all "Christian." They had some weird nationalized Neo-pagan belief system underpinning their motives and actions, despite whatever veneer of Christianity they attempted to leverage. 4. Are you aware of the atrocities of pagans in the last 2,000 years? Animists? Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? Or are you arguing from "recency bias"? Or just based on what you're aware of? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 21:00:49 GMT
Please, Mr. History, what religion caused more death and suffering than Christianity in the last 2000 years. Even in just the 20th century, you Christians were atrocious beasts. link. You do not accept this as part of your heritage? How convenient for you. Freon Oh...you mean only in the last 2000 years!? I thought you meant ever. So: 1. You take for granted the positive impact that Christianity had on the (western) world that lifted us from the barbarism described by Tom Holland (above). Thus, the atrocities prior to "the last 2,000 years" are conveniently ignored. 2. Atrocities committed by people calling themselves Christians is eclipsed by those perpetrated by totalitarian states that officially claimed to be irreligious (in the last century alone). 3. Appealing to Godwin's Law does not work, because despite the deplorable collusion the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis, the Nazis were not at all "Christian." They had some weird nationalized Neo-pagan belief system underpinning their motives and actions, despite whatever veneer of Christianity they attempted to leverage. 4. Are you aware of the atrocities of pagans in the last 2,000 years? Animists? Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? Or are you arguing from "recency bias"? Or just based on what you're aware of? We're not discussing the positive aspect of Christianity. It exists, and I'm willing to delve into it, but that cannot happen until you acknowledge the darker side of things. For you, the ONLY part of Christianity is that good side, when we know that those who follow the EXACT same scriptures as you, have interpreted it in the most vile ways. Not too many religions has that happened in. Why does Christianity uniquely produce such total evil? And your notion that those people who merely 'called' themselves Christians don't really count is BS. Who says YOU are a 'real' Christian. Not the far righties. And you don't count them as such. And for the rest of us, we don't really give a shit about your internal squabbles. You believe Jesus is your savior, then guess what, you're a Christian. Apparently, believing Jesus is your guy, causes some of you to go evil, and some of you to play nice. That's the whole package, whether you like it or not. Nazis were not real Christians...because they lost. If they hadn't, we would live in a very different world right now, you'd still be a Christian, but it would mean something totally different. It's not the first time in history that has happened. Sure, I'm aware of atrocities caused by other groups, I'm glad you mention them. Because you would have to aggregate all of them, to equal what the Christians did. If you represent the 'good' side of Christianity, why don't other Christian sects see you as such? And why are you right about what Christianity is, and they are wrong? If it does not hurt you to hear that the legacy of the religion you chose has such evil in its past, then I don't think you really understand the message of Christianity. You want to make the world a better place? Get more Christians to think as you do. If you are just trying to recruit non-Christians to your religion, then it's a business. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 21:11:49 GMT
Oh...you mean only in the last 2000 years!? I thought you meant ever. So: 1. You take for granted the positive impact that Christianity had on the (western) world that lifted us from the barbarism described by Tom Holland (above). Thus, the atrocities prior to "the last 2,000 years" are conveniently ignored. 2. Atrocities committed by people calling themselves Christians is eclipsed by those perpetrated by totalitarian states that officially claimed to be irreligious (in the last century alone). 3. Appealing to Godwin's Law does not work, because despite the deplorable collusion the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis, the Nazis were not at all "Christian." They had some weird nationalized Neo-pagan belief system underpinning their motives and actions, despite whatever veneer of Christianity they attempted to leverage. 4. Are you aware of the atrocities of pagans in the last 2,000 years? Animists? Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? Or are you arguing from "recency bias"? Or just based on what you're aware of? We're not discussing the positive aspect of Christianity. It exists, and I'm willing to delve into it, but that cannot happen until you acknowledge the darker side of things. For you, the ONLY part of Christianity is that good side, when we know that those who follow the EXACT same scriptures as you, have interpreted it in the most vile ways. Not too many religions has that happened in. Why does Christianity uniquely produce such total evil? You don't read my posts carefully, do you? Did you catch the "deplorable collusion of the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis"? Discrepancies between the actions of religious people and the clear teachings of the founder of their religion, religious texts, etc., cannot be ignored. Further, any discrepancies should be accounted for within the religion itself in terms of explanation, consequence, etc. That's certainly the case in Christianity. See above. Was Corrie ten Boom a real Christian? Would she still have been one if the Nazis won? I'm more aware than you are of atrocities committed in the name of Jesus and in the name of the Church. Asking a "why" question based on an ill-founded premise is not legitimate. That would be akin to "why do Jews eat pork?" ...or "why do you beat your wife?" You know...etc. And...what do you think I'm doing? Why don't we have an LNF poll as to how many "non-Christians here I've tried to recruit to Christianity." I believe I've posted "here" for the most part of over 20 years now. Go ahead. I dare you. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 21:37:06 GMT
We're not discussing the positive aspect of Christianity. It exists, and I'm willing to delve into it, but that cannot happen until you acknowledge the darker side of things. For you, the ONLY part of Christianity is that good side, when we know that those who follow the EXACT same scriptures as you, have interpreted it in the most vile ways. Not too many religions has that happened in. Why does Christianity uniquely produce such total evil? You don't read my posts carefully, do you? Did you catch the "deplorable collusion of the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis"? Discrepancies between the actions of religious people and the clear teachings of the founder of their religion, religious texts, etc., cannot be ignored. Further, any discrepancies should be accounted for within the religion itself in terms of explanation, consequence, etc. That's certainly the case in Christianity. See above. Was Corrie ten Boom a real Christian? Would she still have been one if the Nazis won? I'm more aware than you are of atrocities committed in the name of Jesus and in the name of the Church. Asking a "why" question based on an ill-founded premise is not legitimate. That would be akin to "why do Jews eat pork?" ...or "why do you beat your wife?" You know...etc. And...what do you think I'm doing? Why don't we have an LNF poll as to how many "non-Christians here I've tried to recruit to Christianity." I believe I've posted "here" for the most part of over 20 years now. Go ahead. I dare you. Nowhere in your response is an acknowledgement of your Religion's dark history in aggregate. You believe the good outweighs the bad, and I think worse, that since YOU did not do those things, you have no responsibility for them. But those who are not Christian do not look at it that way. To us, you are a dangerous and unpredictable religion. Sure, today, you might be really nice, but your children may be monsters. I say again, if you want to change the world, convince your OWN RELIGION to see the world as you do, instead of just trying to increase your numbers. G-d doesn't care how many you are, G-d cares about how you make the world a better place. And yes, I know that you look at the one as meaning the other. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 22:32:22 GMT
You don't read my posts carefully, do you? Did you catch the "deplorable collusion of the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis"? Discrepancies between the actions of religious people and the clear teachings of the founder of their religion, religious texts, etc., cannot be ignored. Further, any discrepancies should be accounted for within the religion itself in terms of explanation, consequence, etc. That's certainly the case in Christianity. See above. Was Corrie ten Boom a real Christian? Would she still have been one if the Nazis won? I'm more aware than you are of atrocities committed in the name of Jesus and in the name of the Church. Asking a "why" question based on an ill-founded premise is not legitimate. That would be akin to "why do Jews eat pork?" ...or "why do you beat your wife?" You know...etc. And...what do you think I'm doing? Why don't we have an LNF poll as to how many "non-Christians here I've tried to recruit to Christianity." I believe I've posted "here" for the most part of over 20 years now. Go ahead. I dare you. Nowhere in your response is an acknowledgement of your Religion's dark history in aggregate. You believe the good outweighs the bad, and I think worse, that since YOU did not do those things, you have no responsibility for them. But those who are not Christian do not look at it that way. To us, you are a dangerous and unpredictable religion. Sure, today, you might be really nice, but your children may be monsters. I say again, if you want to change the world, convince your OWN RELIGION to see the world as you do, instead of just trying to increase your numbers. G-d doesn't care how many you are, G-d cares about how you make the world a better place. And yes, I know that you look at the one as meaning the other. Freon Your response: what many medieval Christians said about Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 22:57:24 GMT
Nowhere in your response is an acknowledgement of your Religion's dark history in aggregate. You believe the good outweighs the bad, and I think worse, that since YOU did not do those things, you have no responsibility for them. But those who are not Christian do not look at it that way. To us, you are a dangerous and unpredictable religion. Sure, today, you might be really nice, but your children may be monsters. I say again, if you want to change the world, convince your OWN RELIGION to see the world as you do, instead of just trying to increase your numbers. G-d doesn't care how many you are, G-d cares about how you make the world a better place. And yes, I know that you look at the one as meaning the other. Freon Your response: what many medieval Christians said about Jews. So instead of acknowledging the evil behaviors that allowed your religion to dominate, you accuse mine of doing the same? That somehow takes yours away? You're not very good at this arguing thing, Mercy. Thing is, we acknowledge our past, good and bad. I was just on a Jewish site today talking about the Jewish slaveholders in the South, prior to the Civil War. Turns out, they were just about as bad as the Christians. That's us, acknowledging a negative of our past, owning it, and then doing what we can to make things right. Part of that, is posting it out there for all to see. Where do you do that, Mercy? Show me the Christian site that shows all the atrocities of history, and how the Christians are acknowledging all their evil, and doing their best to make amends. Is that not the 'Christian' thing to do? So where is it? Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right. The victor writes the history. I would be appalled to follow that type of irresponsible accountability. Those are not good values. They are the WORST values. Hmmm, now remind me again, which president was it that believes that what they did in the past should have no consequences... Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 23:46:28 GMT
Your response: what many medieval Christians said about Jews. So instead of acknowledging the evil behaviors that allowed your religion to dominate, you accuse mine of doing the same? That somehow takes yours away? You're not very good at this arguing thing, Mercy. Thing is, we acknowledge our past, good and bad. I was just on a Jewish site today talking about the Jewish slaveholders in the South, prior to the Civil War. Turns out, they were just about as bad as the Christians. That's us, acknowledging a negative of our past, owning it, and then doing what we can to make things right. Part of that, is posting it out there for all to see. Where do you do that, Mercy? Show me the Christian site that shows all the atrocities of history, and how the Christians are acknowledging all their evil, and doing their best to make amends. Is that not the 'Christian' thing to do? So where is it? Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right. The victor writes the history. I would be appalled to follow that type of irresponsible accountability. Those are not good values. They are the WORST values. Hmmm, now remind me again, which president was it that believes that what they did in the past should have no consequences... Freon Ah...here's the problem. I have done it. Many times. I'm not required to do it every time. N.T. Wright was accused of denying the virgin birth (or something) because he didn't acknowledge it. You can't acknowledge everything that important to someone else...every time.I've acknowledge the problems, inappropriate violence, coercion, atrocities, etc., many times. But you have to understand that on this forum...everybody knows that. Christians are generally on the "back foot" on this site. I don't need to remind everybody else about it... every time. But I have acknowledged it. From time to time. "Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right." If that's your conclusion, then you are not paying attention. Willfully blind and ignorance. But...as long as you're happy. Caveats and all. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 1:07:34 GMT
So instead of acknowledging the evil behaviors that allowed your religion to dominate, you accuse mine of doing the same? That somehow takes yours away? You're not very good at this arguing thing, Mercy. Thing is, we acknowledge our past, good and bad. I was just on a Jewish site today talking about the Jewish slaveholders in the South, prior to the Civil War. Turns out, they were just about as bad as the Christians. That's us, acknowledging a negative of our past, owning it, and then doing what we can to make things right. Part of that, is posting it out there for all to see. Where do you do that, Mercy? Show me the Christian site that shows all the atrocities of history, and how the Christians are acknowledging all their evil, and doing their best to make amends. Is that not the 'Christian' thing to do? So where is it? Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right. The victor writes the history. I would be appalled to follow that type of irresponsible accountability. Those are not good values. They are the WORST values. Hmmm, now remind me again, which president was it that believes that what they did in the past should have no consequences... Freon Ah...here's the problem. I have done it. Many times. I'm not required to do it every time. N.T. Wright was accused of denying the virgin birth (or something) because he didn't acknowledge it. You can't acknowledge everything that important to someone else...every time.I've acknowledge the problems, inappropriate violence, coercion, atrocities, etc., many times. But you have to understand that on this forum...everybody knows that. Christians are generally on the "back foot" on this site. I don't need to remind everybody else about it... every time. But I have acknowledged it. From time to time. "Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right." If that's your conclusion, then you are not paying attention. Willfully blind and ignorance. But...as long as you're happy. Caveats and all. You conclude that I'm just not listening to you, and I conclude that you have not convinced me of your sincerity on the issue. Even in your post right here and now, I don't hear any regret for all that your ancestors did to put Christianity where it currently is. MILLIONS dead in the name of Jesus. MILLIONS tortured, starved, enslaved, over thousands of years. Your religion wasn't just occasionally awful, it was consistently awful. And all so that your message of peace and love could spread. But REALLY, all about Christianity growing through coercion and fear. That is your legacy. If you are a Christian. If you TRULY believe, then you accept all that evil, corruptness, and power-hunger, and you then somehow ignore it, and hope no one remembers. Christianity is the religion of shame. Was it worth it? Did the gains that occurred, the pride you take in your religion, compensate for all that evil? To you, yes. And so I ask, what were those gains? Tell me, Mercy, what compensates for all that misery over such a long period of time. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 1:59:00 GMT
Ah...here's the problem. I have done it. Many times. I'm not required to do it every time. N.T. Wright was accused of denying the virgin birth (or something) because he didn't acknowledge it. You can't acknowledge everything that important to someone else...every time.I've acknowledge the problems, inappropriate violence, coercion, atrocities, etc., many times. But you have to understand that on this forum...everybody knows that. Christians are generally on the "back foot" on this site. I don't need to remind everybody else about it... every time. But I have acknowledged it. From time to time. "Because in talking to 'devout' Christians like you, as well as the far right version of Christians we have here, none of you give a shit about your past. You all think you're great, and not responsible for the legacy of your religion. How can I learn to love a religion that believes that anything it does in the past has no consequences? Might makes right." If that's your conclusion, then you are not paying attention. Willfully blind and ignorance. But...as long as you're happy. Caveats and all. You conclude that I'm just not listening to you, and I conclude that you have not convinced me of your sincerity on the issue. So what? Well, it's one reason I usually try to distinguish between "Jesus follower" and "Christian." "Christian" is a dubiously ambiguous term, especially when reduced to some kind of socio-political designation that is theologically and morally removed from anything "truly Christian." Do you think they are my theological forebears? No. My theological forebears were killed by them. If I truly believe what? I have been a vocal critic of "all that evil, corruptness, and power-hunger," from Constantine to the Borgias to Martin Luther to contemporary televangelists bilking people out of money. I haven't done this in secret. Or in the dark. Sorry you missed it. Here's a Christian perspective: justice lies in the hands of God and the unjust will certainly not go unpunished. Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 4:02:52 GMT
You conclude that I'm just not listening to you, and I conclude that you have not convinced me of your sincerity on the issue. So what? Well, it's one reason I usually try to distinguish between "Jesus follower" and "Christian." "Christian" is a dubiously ambiguous term, especially when reduced to some kind of socio-political designation that is theologically and morally removed from anything "truly Christian." Do you think they are my theological forebears? No. My theological forebears were killed by them. If I truly believe what? I have been a vocal critic of "all that evil, corruptness, and power-hunger," from Constantine to the Borgias to Martin Luther to contemporary televangelists bilking people out of money. I haven't done this in secret. Or in the dark. Sorry you missed it. Here's a Christian perspective: justice lies in the hands of God and the unjust will certainly not go unpunished. Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Jesus follower vs Christian? A nuance only a Christian could understand. In Judaism, we have all sorts, but we're all Jewish. Share the same heritage. They would not be here, nor I, unless all that my culture went through was shared. But you are saying that does not apply to magical Christians. No, no, 'Christians' are the good ones, and all the others were just 'followers'. Or did I get it backwards? And of course, YOU get to decide which is which. Do you hear yourself? The level of arrogance for you to say that YOU are an actual Christian, but all the ones you disagree with, you judge not to be. All after you literally just quoted your Bible saying that judging should ONLY be done by G-d in the 'kingdom of heaven'. I can't keep up with your pivoting, Mercy. Which is it? You, or G-d, who judges? Because you seem to be doing a LOT of judging of your fellow Christians. If you choose to see Jesus as your savior, that's fine, I can accept that. But you inherit every other person in history who did so as well, and all they did as a result of that choice. For some reason, huge groups of Jesus followers justified evil actions in the name of their savior. I would wonder, if I was Christian, what about the religion causes that to happen. We see it right here, on this forum, with far righties considering themselves the BEST Christians, and those like you saying they are the opposite. To me, you're both correct. Christianity has had plenty of time to figure itself out, thousands of years, but instead it's just become fractured with mixed messaging, leading to sects, like yours and theirs, who do whatever they want, and call it 'Christianity'. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 12:16:33 GMT
So what? Well, it's one reason I usually try to distinguish between "Jesus follower" and "Christian." "Christian" is a dubiously ambiguous term, especially when reduced to some kind of socio-political designation that is theologically and morally removed from anything "truly Christian." Do you think they are my theological forebears? No. My theological forebears were killed by them. If I truly believe what? I have been a vocal critic of "all that evil, corruptness, and power-hunger," from Constantine to the Borgias to Martin Luther to contemporary televangelists bilking people out of money. I haven't done this in secret. Or in the dark. Sorry you missed it. Here's a Christian perspective: justice lies in the hands of God and the unjust will certainly not go unpunished. Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Jesus follower vs Christian? A nuance only a Christian could understand. In Judaism, we have all sorts, but we're all Jewish. Share the same heritage. They would not be here, nor I, unless all that my culture went through was shared. But you are saying that does not apply to magical Christians. No, no, 'Christians' are the good ones, and all the others were just 'followers'. Or did I get it backwards? And of course, YOU get to decide which is which. Do you hear yourself? The level of arrogance for you to say that YOU are an actual Christian, but all the ones you disagree with, you judge not to be. All after you literally just quoted your Bible saying that judging should ONLY be done by G-d in the 'kingdom of heaven'. I can't keep up with your pivoting, Mercy. Which is it? You, or G-d, who judges? Because you seem to be doing a LOT of judging of your fellow Christians. If you choose to see Jesus as your savior, that's fine, I can accept that. But you inherit every other person in history who did so as well, and all they did as a result of that choice. For some reason, huge groups of Jesus followers justified evil actions in the name of their savior. I would wonder, if I was Christian, what about the religion causes that to happen. We see it right here, on this forum, with far righties considering themselves the BEST Christians, and those like you saying they are the opposite. To me, you're both correct. Christianity has had plenty of time to figure itself out, thousands of years, but instead it's just become fractured with mixed messaging, leading to sects, like yours and theirs, who do whatever they want, and call it 'Christianity'. Freon No, you misunderstand. I’m not calling myself a “true Christian.” I’m calling myself a “Jesus follower.” Removes the ambiguity. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 13:59:20 GMT
Jesus follower vs Christian? A nuance only a Christian could understand. In Judaism, we have all sorts, but we're all Jewish. Share the same heritage. They would not be here, nor I, unless all that my culture went through was shared. But you are saying that does not apply to magical Christians. No, no, 'Christians' are the good ones, and all the others were just 'followers'. Or did I get it backwards? And of course, YOU get to decide which is which. Do you hear yourself? The level of arrogance for you to say that YOU are an actual Christian, but all the ones you disagree with, you judge not to be. All after you literally just quoted your Bible saying that judging should ONLY be done by G-d in the 'kingdom of heaven'. I can't keep up with your pivoting, Mercy. Which is it? You, or G-d, who judges? Because you seem to be doing a LOT of judging of your fellow Christians. If you choose to see Jesus as your savior, that's fine, I can accept that. But you inherit every other person in history who did so as well, and all they did as a result of that choice. For some reason, huge groups of Jesus followers justified evil actions in the name of their savior. I would wonder, if I was Christian, what about the religion causes that to happen. We see it right here, on this forum, with far righties considering themselves the BEST Christians, and those like you saying they are the opposite. To me, you're both correct. Christianity has had plenty of time to figure itself out, thousands of years, but instead it's just become fractured with mixed messaging, leading to sects, like yours and theirs, who do whatever they want, and call it 'Christianity'. Freon No, you misunderstand. I’m not calling myself a “true Christian.” I’m calling myself a “Jesus follower.” Removes the ambiguity. But they consider themselves 'Jesus followers', too! There is no ambiguity, Mercy. In fact, you just explained to me exactly what it is about Christianity that enables and endorses all those atrocities. It's exactly as you are saying, your taking zero responsibility for others who are/were Christians. Every one of you defines Christianity differently, and every one of you believes all the others are wrong, and therefore every one of you believes you can behave any way you want, as long as you append the label 'Jesus follower' to it. Christianity is not a religion, it's an excuse. And people love it, because once they apply that label to their behaviors, no matter how atrocious, they become justified and good. I really appreciate this conversation, Mercy. You've opened my eyes to a quandary I'd never spent much time trying to understand, but still felt nagged by its incompleteness. Suddenly everything you all do makes sense. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 15:50:33 GMT
No, you misunderstand. I’m not calling myself a “true Christian.” I’m calling myself a “Jesus follower.” Removes the ambiguity. But they consider themselves 'Jesus followers', too! There is no ambiguity, Mercy. In fact, you just explained to me exactly what it is about Christianity that enables and endorses all those atrocities. It's exactly as you are saying, your taking zero responsibility for others who are/were Christians. Every one of you defines Christianity differently, and every one of you believes all the others are wrong, and therefore every one of you believes you can behave any way you want, as long as you append the label 'Jesus follower' to it. Christianity is not a religion, it's an excuse. And people love it, because once they apply that label to their behaviors, no matter how atrocious, they become justified and good. I really appreciate this conversation, Mercy. You've opened my eyes to a quandary I'd never spent much time trying to understand, but still felt nagged by its incompleteness. Suddenly everything you all do makes sense. Freon No…people don’t necessarily call themselves “Jesus followers.” That doesn’t work as a social, cultural, or political category. This is all really important to you, isn’t it? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 16:00:18 GMT
But they consider themselves 'Jesus followers', too! There is no ambiguity, Mercy. In fact, you just explained to me exactly what it is about Christianity that enables and endorses all those atrocities. It's exactly as you are saying, your taking zero responsibility for others who are/were Christians. Every one of you defines Christianity differently, and every one of you believes all the others are wrong, and therefore every one of you believes you can behave any way you want, as long as you append the label 'Jesus follower' to it. Christianity is not a religion, it's an excuse. And people love it, because once they apply that label to their behaviors, no matter how atrocious, they become justified and good. I really appreciate this conversation, Mercy. You've opened my eyes to a quandary I'd never spent much time trying to understand, but still felt nagged by its incompleteness. Suddenly everything you all do makes sense. Freon No…people don’t necessarily call themselves “Jesus followers.” That doesn’t work as a social, cultural, or political category. This is all really important to you, isn’t it? Not really. As I said, I don't give it much thought, but there was a dimension that has confused me for a long time, and you've just clarified it. Christianity has no built-in sense of responsibility for anyone but the individual. Each Christian is effectively practicing their own religion, with no obligation, or sense of standardized morality, to each other. As long as you personally 'follow Jesus', in your own way, you can call yourself a 'good' Christian. And it will all be sorted out when you die. Not how my religion works, so very strange to me. And explains so much. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 16:45:19 GMT
No…people don’t necessarily call themselves “Jesus followers.” That doesn’t work as a social, cultural, or political category. This is all really important to you, isn’t it? Not really. As I said, I don't give it much thought, but there was a dimension that has confused me for a long time, and you've just clarified it. Christianity has no built-in sense of responsibility for anyone but the individual. Each Christian is effectively practicing their own religion, with no obligation, or sense of standardized morality, to each other. As long as you personally 'follow Jesus', in your own way, you can call yourself a 'good' Christian. And it will all be sorted out when you die. Not how my religion works, so very strange to me. And explains so much. Freon Well, you might want to rethink that. Your conclusions are all wrong. Unless you're happy (with caveats) with your wrong conclusions. It was just a few posts ago I posted the Matthew verse: "Not everyone that says, 'Lord, Lord'..." So...you've made a huge leap to a huge conclusion by paying attention only what you want to pay attention to. Again...as long as you're happy (with caveats). I just wanted to point out that I do not endorse your conclusions. Because they're wrong. Just to be clear. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 18:36:38 GMT
Not really. As I said, I don't give it much thought, but there was a dimension that has confused me for a long time, and you've just clarified it. Christianity has no built-in sense of responsibility for anyone but the individual. Each Christian is effectively practicing their own religion, with no obligation, or sense of standardized morality, to each other. As long as you personally 'follow Jesus', in your own way, you can call yourself a 'good' Christian. And it will all be sorted out when you die. Not how my religion works, so very strange to me. And explains so much. Freon Well, you might want to rethink that. Your conclusions are all wrong. Unless you're happy (with caveats) with your wrong conclusions. It was just a few posts ago I posted the Matthew verse: "Not everyone that says, 'Lord, Lord'..." So...you've made a huge leap to a huge conclusion by paying attention only what you want to pay attention to. Again...as long as you're happy (with caveats). I just wanted to point out that I do not endorse your conclusions. Because they're wrong. Just to be clear. For me, it's about evidence that supports a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that Christianity is a homogeneous religion from the perspective of moral consensus and shared history. But you have your own morality, and it is clearly different, nay, the opposite, of the far righties. And both your groups are HUGE. So it is not merely your personal opinion vs those on this forum. It represents millions of individuals, all who call themselves 'Christians', or in your case, 'Followers of Jesus'. I really don't see the distinction, because in both cases, they are following what Jesus taught, or at least they believe they do. Unless you are saying you follow Jesus, the person? How would you even do that? And then we have your posts regarding your shared history, which you acknowledge as occurring, but take zero responsibility for. Interestingly, the only morality both of your groups seem to share, is NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state. You personally do NOT acknowledge that there is something intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities, yet really have no good explanation of why so many occurred in Jesus' name. I can understand your unwillingness to do so, because it challenges your personal beliefs, and forces you to see Christianity in a negative light. Admitting error is not your strong suit. You've already justified your Christianity by ignoring all that inconvenient history, so no big surprise, your disagreement. I've laid out the hypothesis. I've referenced the evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. Where am I in error? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 19:41:18 GMT
Well, you might want to rethink that. Your conclusions are all wrong. Unless you're happy (with caveats) with your wrong conclusions. It was just a few posts ago I posted the Matthew verse: "Not everyone that says, 'Lord, Lord'..." So...you've made a huge leap to a huge conclusion by paying attention only what you want to pay attention to. Again...as long as you're happy (with caveats). I just wanted to point out that I do not endorse your conclusions. Because they're wrong. Just to be clear. For me, it's about evidence that supports a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that Christianity is a homogeneous religion from the perspective of moral consensus and shared history. But you have your own morality, and it is clearly different, nay, the opposite, of the far righties. And both your groups are HUGE. So it is not merely your personal opinion vs those on this forum. It represents millions of individuals, all who call themselves 'Christians', or in your case, 'Followers of Jesus'. I really don't see the distinction, because in both cases, they are following what Jesus taught, or at least they believe they do. Unless you are saying you follow Jesus, the person? How would you even do that? And then we have your posts regarding your shared history, which you acknowledge as occurring, but take zero responsibility for. Interestingly, the only morality both of your groups seem to share, is NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state. You personally do NOT acknowledge that there is something intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities, yet really have no good explanation of why so many occurred in Jesus' name. I can understand your unwillingness to do so, because it challenges your personal beliefs, and forces you to see Christianity in a negative light. Admitting error is not your strong suit. You've already justified your Christianity by ignoring all that inconvenient history, so no big surprise, your disagreement. I've laid out the hypothesis. I've referenced the evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. Where am I in error? Freon This is what is called, in hockey, a "deke." You have sidestepped what I said and just reiterated your premise, which I've already contradicted. There is no significant coherence between "far righties," which are more defined by nationalism than anything else, and followers of Jesus, for whom allegiance to Jesus trumps any temporal state or structure. That's your first flaw. You said, "NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state." Well...I've addressed that, haven't I? Did you just ignore it? Probably. But why don't you be specific? Which atrocities...specifically? And...what does it mean to "take responsibility" for it? Like...specifically? What does that mean? What does it look like? And no, there is absolutely nothing "intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities," whether or not they occur in Jesus' name. But you're welcome to point it out, if you can (which you can't). That's the whole irony of it...the disconnect between atrocities and the person of Jesus and the message of Christianity. Do you think..."nobody has noticed that"? Reams and reams of theology have addressed it. You know, self-scrutiny, self-correction, etc. So...starting with a "why" question followed by a false premise...well, I've already addressed it. Why are you motivated by affective schizoid mania? See? See how that works? Why is Obama hiding the fact that he's from Kenya? See? Another example. Rather than asking these "why" questions, followed by false premises, get your premises correct. You're asking the wrong questions. If you need my help to ask the right ones, I'm willing. And yes, I have a great explanation as to why people leverage Christianity to commit atrocities—because all people are inherently flawed and naturally bent towards self-will. It's less that "power corrupts" but that (as per Frank Herbert) power attracts the corruptible. And so any system of power will be leveraged, if the "good ones" aren't vigilant, by the corrupt. The Borgias did not become popes by "following Jesus." That should be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 19:55:11 GMT
For me, it's about evidence that supports a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that Christianity is a homogeneous religion from the perspective of moral consensus and shared history. But you have your own morality, and it is clearly different, nay, the opposite, of the far righties. And both your groups are HUGE. So it is not merely your personal opinion vs those on this forum. It represents millions of individuals, all who call themselves 'Christians', or in your case, 'Followers of Jesus'. I really don't see the distinction, because in both cases, they are following what Jesus taught, or at least they believe they do. Unless you are saying you follow Jesus, the person? How would you even do that? And then we have your posts regarding your shared history, which you acknowledge as occurring, but take zero responsibility for. Interestingly, the only morality both of your groups seem to share, is NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state. You personally do NOT acknowledge that there is something intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities, yet really have no good explanation of why so many occurred in Jesus' name. I can understand your unwillingness to do so, because it challenges your personal beliefs, and forces you to see Christianity in a negative light. Admitting error is not your strong suit. You've already justified your Christianity by ignoring all that inconvenient history, so no big surprise, your disagreement. I've laid out the hypothesis. I've referenced the evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. Where am I in error? Freon This is what is called, in hockey, a "deke." You have sidestepped what I said and just reiterated your premise, which I've already contradicted. There is no significant coherence between "far righties," which are more defined by nationalism than anything else, and followers of Jesus, for whom allegiance to Jesus trumps any temporal state or structure. That's your first flaw. You said, "NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state." Well...I've addressed that, haven't I? Did you just ignore it? Probably. But why don't you be specific? Which atrocities...specifically? And...what does it mean to "take responsibility" for it? Like...specifically? What does that mean? What does it look like? And no, there is absolutely nothing "intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities," whether or not they occur in Jesus' name. But you're welcome to point it out, if you can (which you can't). That's the whole irony of it...the disconnect between atrocities and the person of Jesus and the message of Christianity. Do you think..."nobody has noticed that"? Reams and reams of theology have addressed it. You know, self-scrutiny, self-correction, etc. So...starting with a "why" question followed by a false premise...well, I've already addressed it. Why are you motivated by affective schizoid mania? See? See how that works? Why is Obama hiding the fact that he's from Kenya? See? Another example. Rather than asking these "why" questions, followed by false premises, get your premises correct. You're asking the wrong questions. If you need my help to ask the right ones, I'm willing. And yes, I have a great explanation as to why people leverage Christianity to commit atrocities—because all people are inherently flawed and naturally bent towards self-will. It's less that "power corrupts" but that (as per Frank Herbert) power attracts the corruptible. And so any system of power will be leveraged, if the "good ones" aren't vigilant, by the corrupt. The Borgias did not become popes by "following Jesus." That should be obvious. Far righties not only consider themselves 'followers' of Jesus, but the BEST of them. Better than you. YOU are not a follower of Jesus, according to them. So how can you say there is no coherence here? There could not be more obvious coherence, and yet you see a flaw here? I do not agree with your logic. With your second point, you have adjusted the goal posts to make it sound like I was only talking about you, when I was talking about your Religion itself. IT has not recognized all its atrocities. IT has not adequately self-introspected to change it's OWN internal problems of creating these evil-doers-in-Jesus'-name. What should it do? Monitor itself to find these seeds of evil, and stomp them out. Standardize its training to insure its message is not being distorted by those seeking mammon instead of that message. Be up front, IN PUBLIC, not just in theological studies, which 99.9% of Christians have no access to, about Christianity's huge errors. All you teach is the good side, not the dangers of past Christians who did evil. There is a LOT you could to prevent future atrocities, if you actually were worried they'd happen in your name. But you just said it yourself, you don't believe Christianity is a cause, so why should you do something about it. That sounds like YOUR flaw, not mine. Your next point is, as your type of people often say, a word salad. Meaningless mumbo-jumbo. And finally we get right to it. You should have started with this one. People are naturally 'flawed'. I KNEW you'd go here. It's the Christian's deepest message. All us poor humans are deeply bad at heart, and NEED Jesus to forgive our intrinsic awfulness, and guide us to goodness. Flipped around, it says humans are going to do bad shit no matter what, but at least if they're Christian, then Christianity will survive. Sick, sick, sick. And by the way, the ONLY people I apply my concerns to are DEVOUT Christians. Most Christians I know are just living their lives, with Christianity the tradition they were raised with. They don't take it too seriously. It's those who do, that we need to worry about. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2024 20:27:00 GMT
This is what is called, in hockey, a "deke." You have sidestepped what I said and just reiterated your premise, which I've already contradicted. There is no significant coherence between "far righties," which are more defined by nationalism than anything else, and followers of Jesus, for whom allegiance to Jesus trumps any temporal state or structure. That's your first flaw. You said, "NOT taking responsibility for all the atrocities that grew Christianity to its current state." Well...I've addressed that, haven't I? Did you just ignore it? Probably. But why don't you be specific? Which atrocities...specifically? And...what does it mean to "take responsibility" for it? Like...specifically? What does that mean? What does it look like? And no, there is absolutely nothing "intrinsic to Christianity that causes people to commit atrocities," whether or not they occur in Jesus' name. But you're welcome to point it out, if you can (which you can't). That's the whole irony of it...the disconnect between atrocities and the person of Jesus and the message of Christianity. Do you think..."nobody has noticed that"? Reams and reams of theology have addressed it. You know, self-scrutiny, self-correction, etc. So...starting with a "why" question followed by a false premise...well, I've already addressed it. Why are you motivated by affective schizoid mania? See? See how that works? Why is Obama hiding the fact that he's from Kenya? See? Another example. Rather than asking these "why" questions, followed by false premises, get your premises correct. You're asking the wrong questions. If you need my help to ask the right ones, I'm willing. And yes, I have a great explanation as to why people leverage Christianity to commit atrocities—because all people are inherently flawed and naturally bent towards self-will. It's less that "power corrupts" but that (as per Frank Herbert) power attracts the corruptible. And so any system of power will be leveraged, if the "good ones" aren't vigilant, by the corrupt. The Borgias did not become popes by "following Jesus." That should be obvious. Far righties not only consider themselves 'followers' of Jesus, but the BEST of them. Better than you. YOU are not a follower of Jesus, according to them. So how can you say there is no coherence here? There could not be more obvious coherence, and yet you see a flaw here? I do not agree with your logic. Have you ever seen a "far righty" acknowledge Jesus over their own nation? I haven't. That's the decider right there. No, you're ignoring what I posted. The issue of "historic atrocities" has been addressed many, many, many times in theological discourse. You're probably only exposed to televangelists or something. Are you familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Jürgen Moltmann? Both in the top 10 of last century's most influential theologians, among Karl Barth, N.T. Wright, Stanley Hauerwas, Reinhold Neibuhr, Desmond Tutu, Thomas Merton, Walter Brueggemann, etc. Both German. One survived the war. The other was killed by the Nazis in a prison just weeks before the end of the war. If you want someone really accessible, try reading a little Greg Boyd. I'm not a huge fan, but he gets right down to the atrocities issue. So, yeah, if you're only paying attention to televangelists, you might not find what you're looking for. But the real influence (that sometimes takes a while to seep into common culture) have not shied away. As for "being up front, in public," yeah, I see it all the time. Different circles, maybe, but I suspect that whatever circles you expose yourself to (not that I'm suggesting you're out there all the time exposing yourself in public; it's a figure of speech) it's kind of a confirmation bias kind of thing. You'll pay attention to what supports your pre-existing presumptions. I'm happy to help, if you're interested (again, maybe start with Greg Boyd...I'm sure he has a blog, podcast, YouTube videos...; he's had people leave his church for "not being nationalistic enough" and he's big enough name in North American Christianity to perceived as influential). Which point was that? The disconnect between "action" and "theology"? Or the point that a "why" question followed by a false premise is illegitimate? I can see why that might be incomprehensible to you if you rely on illegitimate questions like that. Let's try a couple more: Why is France orange? Why is King Charles made of cheese? Why are submarines lighter than air? See how that works? If the premise is false, the "why" is unanswerable. Maybe avoid those kinds of questions. Again, just trying to help... Nope. Still missing the point. Almost like you're desperately trying to miss the point. Because we're flawed, we (Christians) have a responsibility to submit to Jesus in obedience. Because it's not acceptable "to do bad shit." When you equate a "devout Christian" with a nationalist, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. A devout Christian recognizes that Jesus, not race, nation, social class, or anything else, deserves highest allegiance. You've been talking about people that give their allegiance to something else...power, their country, an ethnicity, their own pleasure or comfort, etc. So...you don't really know what a "devout Christian" is. If you actually meet one (and maybe you have, but have been blinded to it by your own prejudices), you would recognize that the world is better of with them in it. |
|
