Do Christians hate us

[dgirl1986]

No I dont think all christians hate us, i small percentage tend to take things to the extreme though.

One of my best friends is a christian. She never had an issue with my paganism (when I was indentifying as such) and was accepting of my sexuality.

 

[payak]

I think the nt followed and lived by will make s very moral and good person.

 

[Windwalker]

I think the nt followed and lived by will make s very moral and good person.

Then how do you reconcile that view with all the evilbible quotations you offered? Perhaps if you can answers this, you have your answer from others...

 

[payak]

Then how do you reconcile that view with all the evilbible quotations you offered? Perhaps if you can answers this, you have your answer from others...

well it seems they don't follow the ot,the verses were from the ot.

so if they follow the nt they will good people,although why the ot is in the bible at all is beyond me.

 

[captainbryce]

well it seems they don't follow the ot,the verses were from the ot.

so if they follow the nt they will good people,although why the ot is in the bible at all is beyond me.

Because we recognize it as part of history. It's what we (Christians) consider to be the record of creation, the record of the old covenant, the history of the Jewish people (the ups and downs), and the prophecy of the Messiah. So even though we don't live by the OT laws because we are not part of the old covenant, it's still contains valuable history that we want to learn. It also contains a lot of wisdom in the Psalms and Proverbs. In many ways, the OT tells us about the true nature of man, and why we need a savior. There is no reason NOT to include that in the bible, just so long as we understand that it is the covenant of Jesus Christ that we should live our lives under, not the covenant of Abraham or the laws of Moses.

 

[Windwalker]

well it seems they don't follow the ot,the verses were from the ot.

so if they follow the nt they will good people,although why the ot is in the bible at all is beyond me.

But, you quoted these in the OP of this thread, particularily calling out the last two. Every one of these you quoted are from the NT:

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

the last 2 are amusing

If you believe that following the NT makes a good person, as you have acknowledged, then you have to not see these verses as posing much a problem towards that result. If so, then the same applies to them also including the OT in their text. You don't have a problem seeing good coming out of it with those in the NT, then why not say the same for those including the OT?

Unless you wish to reverse your position now....

 

[ChristineES]

well it seems they don't follow the ot,the verses were from the ot.

so if they follow the nt they will good people,although why the ot is in the bible at all is beyond me.

We use it as a reference (among other things). A lot of Jesus' teachings were also in the Tanakh. I have found upon experience that they quote less from the books that contain all those laws and quote more from books like Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Job, and others. They quote from what are called the books of history less than they do the prophets.
The entire Bible is filled with stories, poetry, the Prophets. We don't limit it to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In fact, those are among the least used.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

We use it as a reference (among other things). A lot of Jesus' teachings were also in the Tanakh. I have found upon experience that they quote less from the books that contain all those laws and quote more from books like Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Job, and others. They quote from what are called the books of history less than they do the prophets.
The entire Bible is filled with stories, poetry, the Prophets. We don't limit it to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In fact, those are among the least used.

Well, Jesus was a Jew who adhered to Judaism, if it wasn't for Paul he might even have gotten his message through.

If the NT was the four gospels it would have been a helluvalot more worth to everyone.

 

[metis]

Now, YOU may be able to find some ambiguity in these otherwise very clear passages that helps your reconcile your belief that someone can be saved without Jesus...

Actually, I don't believe one way or the other. But I think most Christians and Christian theologians, and I've seen polls to support this, simply do not believe that the issue of political-correct beliefs about Jesus is really the main concern for them or God, and they question why God would be so nasty so as to condemn a person to eternal punishment simply because they don't share the same p.c. belief that some others may have. After all, there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, and thousands of independent congregations, probably most of which believe they are the "true church", so if everything was so black & white, why so many differences?

If you get into early church history, you will note that the early church had a lot of difficulty defining "Jesus". This issue of "salvation" also was hotly debated and still is. Over the centuries, the Trinitarian concept became more popular, but it certainly was not that clear in the early church, which is why it took a creed to eventually define it, even though a great many Christians still didn't agree.

And didn't Jesus say not to judge? And didn't Paul even say that he wasn't even willing to judge himself? Therefore, my recommendation is to not judge others, including even believing that people can completely understand what the full criteria for judgement might be.

 

[payak]

Because we recognize it as part of history. It's what we (Christians) consider to be the record of creation, the record of the old covenant, the history of the Jewish people (the ups and downs), and the prophecy of the Messiah. So even though we don't live by the OT laws because we are not part of the old covenant, it's still contains valuable history that we want to learn. It also contains a lot of wisdom in the Psalms and Proverbs. In many ways, the OT tells us about the true nature of man, and why we need a savior. There is no reason NOT to include that in the bible, just so long as we understand that it is the covenant of Jesus Christ that we should live our lives under, not the covenant of Abraham or the laws of Moses.

The part about the ot showing why you need a saviour really hit me,awsome point and answer.

Its making sense now why you include the ot,thankyou.

 

[captainbryce]

The part about the ot showing why you need a saviour really hit me,awsome point and answer.

Its making sense now why you include the ot,thankyou.

Glad we could resolve that "civilized" like.

Christianity seems to be the religion that is the easiest to criticize (in terms of being called hypocritical) by most people. But much of the criticism generally comes from a 'lack of understanding' when it comes to interpreting the bible. People tend to fault Christians and "the Christian God" based on God's commandments to the Jewish people, and the biblical record of how they were often punished by God for failing to obey him. Yet, Christians are simultaneously criticized for following a religion that "ignores" the laws given to the Jewish people in favor of much better, more peaceful ways of the messiah. I've always found that perplexing as the two criticisms are contradictory and generally cancel each other out. But the confusion no doubt arises because we've combined our Holy text (the New Testament) with the Holy text of ancient Israel (the Old Testament) under one book called "the bible". And I think this is what leads to all of the misconceptions about what Christianity truly is, and why we believe and practice as we do.

 

[captainbryce]

Well, Jesus was a Jew who adhered to Judaism,

Jesus adhered to God's true commandments to the Jewish people, which is something that most of the Jewish people did NOT adhere to. God did not give the Jewish people "Judaism"; that is something they made up themselves! They substituted what God truly gave them for their own traditions, which is why Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders.

Mark 15:1-9
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.

if it wasn't for Paul he might even have gotten his message through.

He did get his message through. And if it wasn't for Paul, his message wouldn't have gotten as far as it did (ie: to the Gentiles).

If the NT was the four gospels it would have been a helluvalot more worth to everyone.

Except the Gentiles (ie: the vast majority of people in the world)!

 

[s2a]

Woman with “familiar spirits” must be stoned to death. Leviticus 20:27
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18


You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

the last 2 are amusing

OK.

Just a reminder that not all participants here are Christians, nor nutty...ok?

We know....that is why some of us are not religious adherents.

Nuff said ?

 

[metis]

Jesus adhered to God's true commandments to the Jewish people, which is something that most of the Jewish people did NOT adhere to. God did not give the Jewish people "Judaism"; that is something they made up themselves! They substituted what God truly gave them for their own traditions, which is why Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders.

[

Not true in the slightest. Here's a site that lists the 613 Laws, which are found in Torah, which is found in your Bible, and which is and was the basis of Judaism: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

We do have some traditions, as all people do throughout the world, but traditions cannot ever be elevate up to or above Torah. The Jewish leaders that Jesus seems to criticize are the mainline Pharisees (as opposed to the "liberal Pharisee" schools) that wanted to protect Torah by "building a fence around Torah" (making the Laws a bit tougher in some areas) and by following the "oral law" that went back to Moses and Sinai, which eventually got written down in the Mishnah and then became part of the Talmud (they are not held up to anywhere near the same level as Torah, though).

Also, Jesus had problems with the arrogance of some leaders (where have we run across this before? ), which no doubt was a correct accusation. Matter of fact, Jesus said to do as they teach but not do as they do.

 

[captainbryce]

Not true in the slightest.

You're entitled to believe it's not true. I am entitled to believe the words of Christ.

Here's a site that lists the 613 Laws, which are found in Torah, which is found in your Bible, and which is and was the basis of Judaism: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

It's very interesting, but it has no relevant on my statement, or Jesus' condemnation of the Jewish leaders 2000 years ago.

We do have some traditions, as all people do throughout the world, but traditions cannot ever be elevate up to or above Torah. The Jewish leaders that Jesus seems to criticize are the mainline Pharisees (as opposed to the "liberal Pharisee" schools) that wanted to protect Torah by "building a fence around Torah" (making the Laws a bit tougher in some areas) and by following the "oral law" that went back to Moses and Sinai, which eventually got written down in the Mishnah and then became part of the Talmud (they are not held up to anywhere near the same level as Torah, though).

That's a lot of unnecessary exposition for a relatively simple question. What are you getting at here, and how does it in any way invalidate something I have said?

Also, Jesus had problems with the arrogance of some leaders (where have we run across this before? ), which no doubt was a correct accusation. Matter of fact, Jesus said to do as they teach but not do as they do.

Correct. And he wouldn't have had to say that if most of the Jewish people were indeed following God's laws as intended, rather than the example of the Jewish leaders. This also is confirmed by the Apostle Paul. Your point?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You're entitled to believe it's not true. I am entitled to believe the words of Christ.

It's very interesting, but it has no relevant on my statement, or Jesus' condemnation of the Jewish leaders 2000 years ago.

That's a lot of unnecessary exposition for a relatively simple question. What are you getting at here, and how does it in any way invalidate something I have said?

Correct. And he wouldn't have had to say that if most of the Jewish people were indeed following God's laws as intended, rather than the example of the Jewish leaders. This also is confirmed by the Apostle Paul. Your point?

Can you prove that most of hte Jewish people were not following God's law as intended?

 

[metis]

You're entitled to believe it's not true. I am entitled to believe the words of Christ.

Actually you don't believe in Jesus on this issue because Jesus said to follow the teachings but not the example that some of the leaders were setting. At no point did he condemn the Jewish people carte blanc and, as a matter of fact as found in the gospels, he stated that he came only for the Jews.

Jesus' point was not that most Jews didn't have correct beliefs, but that some were not living a life of compassion and/or justice, and undoubtedly many weren't. What's new.

 

[captainbryce]

Actually you don't believe in Jesus on this issue because Jesus said to follow the teachings but not the example that some of the leaders were setting.

He also reinterpreted many of the teachings that have been traditionally followed and taught by the corrupt leaders (something you are blatantly ignoring).

And please refrain from telling me what I believe!

At no point did he condemn the Jewish people carte blanc

I never said he did

and, as a matter of fact as found in the gospels, he stated that he came only for the Jews.

Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised messiah who died to atone for your sins so that you may have eternal salvation? Yes or no?

Jesus' point was not that most Jews didn't have correct beliefs, but that some were not living a life of compassion and/or justice, and undoubtedly many weren't. What's new.

I don't think that's the point he was making, but again, you're welcome to interpret it as you please.

 

[captainbryce]

Actually, I don't believe one way or the other. But I think most Christians and Christian theologians, and I've seen polls to support this, simply do not believe that the issue of political-correct beliefs about Jesus is really the main concern for them or God, and they question why God would be so nasty so as to condemn a person to eternal punishment simply because they don't share the same p.c. belief that some others may have.

What do you consider the P.C. belief of Christianity? That anyone can be saved (regardless of whether or not they accept Christ), or that only people who accept Christ will be saved?

After all, there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, and thousands of independent congregations, probably most of which believe they are the "true church", so if everything was so black & white, why so many differences?

Only the arrogance of men would suggest that a church they happens to adhere to the doctrines they appreciate would be the "true church". That is the reason why there are so many differences. The bible makes it clear that anyone proclaiming that there is one true Church by excluding other self-professed Christians is actually going against Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10-15
10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name.

But although there may be many different denominations and independent congregations, the fundamentals of salvation are identical among the vast majority of them.

Evangelical Protestants, the Roman Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are all vastly different denominations of Christianity. On the surface it would appear they have little in common. Catholics believe in the Papal authority, and also that their church is the "true church", as established by Jesus Christ. Evangelicals, while adopting some of the tenets of Catholicism, ultimately believe that the Catholic Church has become a corruption of men, and believe instead in "sola scriptura". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that both Catholics and Protestants follow corrupted doctrines of men, and that their version of "sola scriptura" comes closest to the intent of the biblical authors of the gospel of Christ and the Apostles. Catholics (at one point) professed that Protestants (of every denomination) were not true Christians, while today they generally consider them misguided Christians. Both Catholics and Protestants consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a cult, due to their small size, relative "newness", radical departures from some previously established doctrines.

All three groups believe in "evangelizing".

Catholics believe that evangelizing means building beautiful, grand cathedrals to attract as many members as possible, and running social, charity programs throughout cities to endear them to Christ.
Evangelical Christians believe that evangelizing means broadcasting the message of Christ on television, getting involved in politics, and spreading the gospel of Christ through public schools and legislature.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that evangelizing means doing missionary work, and going from door-to-door on the weekends, handing out pamphlets that spread their message of Christ.

All of these groups practice Christianity very differently. But at the end of the day, with all of their differences and adherence to their own doctrines, they all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Jesus is the promised messiah, and Jesus the only path to salvation. These are the fundamental tenets of Christianity, and you'll find the same beliefs in EVERY Christian denomination (no matter how different it may seem from the next denomination)! They all believe in following the examples of Jesus Christ, although they all do it in different ways.

If you get into early church history, you will note that the early church had a lot of difficulty defining "Jesus". This issue of "salvation" also was hotly debated and still is.

I see no evidence to support this idea :no:

Over the centuries, the Trinitarian concept became more popular, but it certainly was not that clear in the early church, which is why it took a creed to eventually define it, even though a great many Christians still didn't agree.

I agree that trinity is a concept that Christians have struggled with in the early church, as well as the various denominations since then. But trinity isn't particularly relevant to salvation.

And didn't Jesus say not to judge?

Yes and no (it depends on the context of the word "judge"). Jesus also said this:

John 12:47
I will not judge those who hear me but don’t obey me, for I have come to save the world and not to judge it.

...and yet...

John 9:39
Then Jesus told him, “I entered this world to render judgment—to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

So clearly, the context of the word judgement (how it is used) determines how to apply what Jesus said about it. We aren't supposed to "condemn" other people for this sins, and this is the type of "judgement" Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7:1-6, because we are all sinners and to condemn someone else as a sinner makes us hypocrites. But we are absolutely supposed to exercise judgement over what is right and wrong.

John 7:24
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.

And didn't Paul even say that he wasn't even willing to judge himself?

Paul also said this:

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

Therefore, my recommendation is to not judge others, including even believing that people can completely understand what the full criteria for judgement might be.

We know what the criteria is for judging. Jesus tells us in John 7. We are to judge according to HIS standards, not our own. And when we exercise judgement, we are merely to "discern" right from wrong, not "condemn" the sinner.

 

[metis]

He also reinterpreted many of the teachings that have been traditionally followed and taught by the corrupt leaders (something you are blatantly ignoring).

Could you give us some examples of these teachings, and then explain how you supposedly know which "corrupt leaders" they came from? Unless you knew them personally, there would be no way to substantiate your accusation.

Jesus did what we Jews had begun to do roughly five centuries before Jesus time, namely giving commentaries, written and/or oral. To state that certain commentaries were penned because of "corrupt leaders" is logically nonsensical, especially since you don't know them and that there's no way to determine which "corrupt leaders" wrote which commentaries.

The "oral law" was not a matter of being "corrupt" but a matter of protecting the Law from accidental violation, much like "building the fence around the Torah". Therefore, to assign either one to "corrupt leaders" is nonsensical as well. Jesus appears to denounce these approaches as "laws made by men", but to assign "corrupt leaders" to them is absurd. These protections were not self-serving to any group, including the leadership, because it did not involve funds nor power.

Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised messiah who died to atone for your sins so that you may have eternal salvation? Yes or no?

No, I do not.

BTW, since you brought that up, which part of Jesus supposedly was sacrificed to "atone for your sins": his human nature, divine nature, or both? I think you should be able to tell at this point what I'm driving at.

Secondly, according to Torah, observant Jewish men were commonly referred to as "sons of God", and it is actually "son of man" that some interpret as possibly being messianic in nature.

Thirdly, if one is to be saved by faith alone, could you then please explain the Parable of the Sheep & Goats in Matthew 25, whereas the goats actually are said to believe Jesus but not follow what he taught? Therefore, the teaching is that one must believe in Jesus, and I would suggest that this would include his teachings on compassion and justice especially since he so much emphasized this. If having politically-correct beliefs supposedly "saves", then this parable makes no sense.

As far as the "messiah" issue is concerned, I'm a non-theistic Jew, so that issue is moot with me. As one who grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church and later taught Christian theology for 14 years, I abandoned both because Jesus simply could not be the messiah. I converted to Judaism over 15 years ago, but pretty much drifted into a non-theistic position, which is not the same as being an atheist.