Hitler comes up very often in these debates for a very good reason: He wasn't original in that he hated Jews. Christians around the world and in his native Germany in particular hated Jews and persecuted them long before he did. It appears that he got many of his ideas from Christianity. I see a term has been coined to describe the practice of pointing out this fact to Christians.Are you... Godwinning your own thread?Anyway, your comments are truly bizarre. If a person was citing antisocial ideas in Mein Kampf, would you criticize them for being hateful? Do you think it's hateful to oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish rhetoric? If not, then why object to my opposing Christ's anti-Jewish rhetoric?
That's crazy. I never stated nor implied that Mein Kampf should be used as a guide to interpreting the Bible. If you read the Bible the way you read my posts, then I think I can see why you don't know that Jesus advocated violence.Yes, if someone were quoting Mein Kampf as a guide to how the Bible should be "correctly" interpreted, I would consider that foolish if not suspicious behavior, even if they meant it as a ill-advised rhetorical strategy to donk on the Bible.
Then why do you oppose my opposing cruelty? You do it for Jesus, of course.I have no problem with you opposing cruelty.No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.
I don't endorse bad scholarship.But if along the way you're endorsing bad scholarship, I don't think your efforts will be very effective.
Then I'll keep on posting sound arguments. I'll be happy to show you how.Just because you're "right" about a big thing doesn't mean you're right about every argument you put forth in favor of it.
Arguments, certainly.Then why do you oppose my opposing cruelty? You do it for Jesus, of course.I have no problem with you opposing cruelty.No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.
I don't endorse bad scholarship.But if along the way you're endorsing bad scholarship, I don't think your efforts will be very effective.
Then I'll keep on posting sound arguments. I'll be happy to show you how.Just because you're "right" about a big thing doesn't mean you're right about every argument you put forth in favor of it.
That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.
Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.
No.Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.
Then maybe there is hope for humans.No.Do you hate anyone who is religious by virtue only of being religious?That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person here who doesn't turn a blind eye to Christ's hate-filled doctrines.
Then maybe there is hope for humans.
Were you to ask me, I'd say no.Then maybe there is hope for humans.
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've noticed that whenever I point out the hatred for unbelievers that's inherent in Christianity, then I am accused of hating Christians. If I accuse the KKK of holding beliefs that are based in hatred for ethnic minorities, would you ask me if I hate Klan members by virtue of their being Klan members?
Were you to ask me, I'd say no.
But I'd give you the same sort of dismissive shrug I give all of your proselytizing efforts if you started trying to extend the judgement to, say, everyone who happens to live in the American South. People are complicated, hate is simple.
Most of your assertions are too vague and subjective to treat as serious arguments. You think Jesus hated everyone, someone else thinks he loved everyone, you quote some verses where he sounds kind of angry, they quote some verses where he sounds kind of nice, you both dismiss each other's arguments and every "conversation" with you about religion is apt to end exactly the same way, yes?Were you to ask me, I'd say no.
I think you are missing my point. The question posed to me is a red-herring fallacy because how much I may or may not hate Christians is completely irrelevant to the hatred for unbelievers in Christ's doctrines. The question posed to me was a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the topic of hatred in Christianity and put me on the defensive. In other words, "accuse the accuser."
But I'd give you the same sort of dismissive shrug I give all of your proselytizing efforts if you started trying to extend the judgement to, say, everyone who happens to live in the American South. People are complicated, hate is simple.
To conclude that a statement is untrue by dismissing it is also a fallacy because true statements can be dismissed.
Most of your assertions are too vague and subjective to treat as serious arguments.
You think Jesus hated everyone...
...someone else thinks he loved everyone...
...you quote some verses where he sounds kind of angry, they quote some verses where he sounds kind of nice...
...you both dismiss each other's arguments and every "conversation" with you about religion is apt to end exactly the same way, yes?
I mean, I've made the case in this thread that your thesis makes no sense relative to Jesus' known teachings on love. Did you make a reasoned argument in response? Of course not. You insisted that Jesus meant (according to you) the love a master and slave have for each other, no citation that time.
I pointed out that your interpretation of Jesus' teachings on the law were inconsistent with any of his other teachings on the law or actions with respect to the law...
...and you almost entirely ignored that one, offering only the non-sequitur that Jesus said nothing specifically about witches, even though logically if that is the case, your entire argument hangs on whether or not your interpretation of his teachings on jurisprudence are accurate - the part of my counterargument that you resolutely ignored.
This style of "argumentation" is deeply annoying.
Short of re-iterating my point, there's nothing I can really add if you're not going to engage in honest discussion of the issues that you raise.
I made no such assumption.... Did you? Because you haven't yet demonstrated your point with any sort of actual textual evidence, or even made it clear what exactly your point is. But it definitely hinges on your knowing what Jesus "meant" by love (presumably ἀγάπη?) rather than what he actually said about it, which suggests you believe he was referring to the love of slaves and masters every time he referenced it.Pointing out the nature of the love Jesus reputedly taught is very well reasoned in that it differentiates modern notions of love with his notions of love. Since the two kinds of love are significantly different, it is simply wrong to assume Jesus taught love in the modern sense of the word, a false assumption that many defenders of the faith make often.
A rather glib response, all human beings at times contradict themselves but that's quite irrelevant to the question of what someone meant by a particular statement. You're the one making a claim that Jesus "meant" something he didn't say, here. If Jesus was generally unreliable and inconsistent, why is it you think he would be any more consistent in his teachings on law (and witchcraft I suppose, had he said anything about it) than his teachings on love?That's easy to explain: Jesus often contradicted himself, or so it seems. He taught both love and hate, for example.
While I think the conceit of phrasing philosophical arguments as math equations is sophomoric, you have broken down your own argument accurately, here. Unfortunately, your argument is missing some crucial elements, such as demonstrating that Jesus understood the Law of Moses the same way that you do: that is, as a whole body whose modern form is infallible and meant to be both literally interpreted and assiduously followed word for word. I have presented evidence that he did not, in fact, see the Law in this way, because a core element of his teachings involved demonstrating cases where blindly following the Law of Moses (stoning someone to death as the law prescribes, for instance) might lead someone into moral error. Where is your evidence that Jesus was, in fact, referring to the same "Law" (Torah) as you, and thought that it should be followed in the way you propose? When that seems to contradict nearly everything else he said about the Torah of God?And you are ignoring the fact that we are told that Jesus said he had not come to do away with the law, something I already explained included the injunction that witches be killed. That's no non sequitur on my part. It follows from set theory. Since the law to kill witches is an element of the set of the laws of Moses, then it is an element of the set of the dogmas Jesus taught because the laws of Moses is a subset of the set of dogmas Jesus taught. In mathematical notation:
k = The Law to Kill Witches
M = The Set of Laws Attributed to Moses
J = The Set of Laws Attributed to Jesus
Since k ∈ M, and M ⊆ J, then k ∈ J.
Sounds like you are being crucified? Not really.Then maybe there is hope for humans.
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've noticed that whenever I point out the hatred for unbelievers that's inherent in Christianity, then I am accused of hating Christians. If I accuse the KKK of holding beliefs that are based in hatred for ethnic minorities, would you ask me if I hate Klan members by virtue of their being Klan members?
I made no such assumption.... Did you?Pointing out the nature of the love Jesus reputedly taught is very well reasoned in that it differentiates modern notions of love with his notions of love. Since the two kinds of love are significantly different, it is simply wrong to assume Jesus taught love in the modern sense of the word, a false assumption that many defenders of the faith make often.
Because you haven't yet demonstrated your point with any sort of actual textual evidence, or even made it clear what exactly your point is.
But it definitely hinges on your knowing what Jesus "meant" by love (presumably ἀγάπη?) rather than what he actually said about it, which suggests you believe he was referring to the love of slaves and masters every time he referenced it.
And stop referencing "many defenders of the faith" and other such imaginary foes. If they exist, they have no bearing on this conversation until one of them shows up. Focus on who you're talking to: two people who have not provided you with any such convenient strawman argument.
...all human beings at times contradict themselves...
...but that's quite irrelevant to the question of what someone meant by a particular statement. You're the one making a claim that Jesus "meant" something he didn't say, here. If Jesus was generally unreliable and inconsistent, why is it you think he would be any more consistent in his teachings on law (and witchcraft I suppose, had he said anything about it) than his teachings on love?
While I think the conceit of phrasing philosophical arguments as math equations is sophomoric...
Unfortunately, your argument is missing some crucial elements, such as demonstrating that Jesus understood the Law of Moses the same way that you do: that is, as a whole body whose modern form is infallible and meant to be both literally interpreted and assiduously followed word for word. I have presented evidence that he did not, in fact, see the Law in this way, because a core element of his teachings involved demonstrating cases where blindly following the Law of Moses (stoning someone to death as the law prescribes, for instance) might lead someone into moral error. Where is your evidence that Jesus was, in fact, referring to the same "Law" (Torah) as you, and thought that it should be followed in the way you propose? When that seems to contradict nearly everything else he said about the Torah of God?
That one is easy: the sinner. If "sin" causes you to love your fellow human being and eschew violence, it is no sin to me. The rest, is going to take some unpacking.So take your pick: Jesus the sinner, or Jesus the murder advocate and founder of the witch hunters.