Christianity has done nothing but Damn Humanity.

[fiveworlds]

That isn't my apologetics it is actually in the bible.

[Unity+]

No. Apologetics does not change what is written. And God doesn't actually state anything. The whole of the Bible is at best 3rd hand and adding your apologetics makes it at best 4th hand. Religion section or no, this is a science site and it's the facts that carry the day.

I think many of your accusations against the Bible are merely putting the passages out of context.

 

In regards to the "Sword of the Gospel" example you provided, I think further context is required to understand it.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html

 

 

 

Among the names of Jesus Christ is that of Prince of Peace. Such verses as Isaiah 9:6, Luke 2:14, and John 14:27 make it clear that Jesus came to bring peace, but that peace is between the man and God. Those who reject God and the only way of salvation through Jesus (John 14:6) will find themselves perpetually at war with God. But those who come to Him in repentance will find themselves at peace with God. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are restored to a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:1).

 

Still, it is inevitable that there will be conflict between good and evil, the Christ and the antichrist, the light and the darkness, the children of God (believers) and the children of the devil (those who refuse Christ). Conflict must arise between the two groups, and this can and does happen within a family in which some are believers and others are not. We should seek to be at peace with all men but should never forget that Jesus warned we will be hated for His sake. Because those who reject Him hate Him, they will hate His followers as well (John 15:18).

Taking the passages completely out of context to further a point that is mostly baseless is more ignorant than anything else.

[Vivec]

Okay, new to forum functionality, not doing the "quote" thing.

 

Those passages from Matthew are new to me. It's really difficult to twist those words in any context. Intention is obvious when "swords" are involved, metaphorically or literally. This is the precise reason that discussions such as this are needed to further our understanding. However, in Revelation "Jesus" is described as having a tongue like a "two edged sword." Poets often refer to this metaphor when they describe damage that they've done in their own lives and in others'. I can take up this "sword" with the old testament (as I often do) and be doing no differently than the Christ. Not to mention his talk of "Love" is bound to start a riot somewhere and especially when he says that God and Love are the same entity. Jews everywhere thought themselves "sinners in the hands of an angry God." (Had to, its a good reference.) If you were raised to believe that God had it out for you and some Jo' comes along and says, "No, dude! That guy LOVES you!" things are gonna get a little... Hairy. Frankly, I come from a broken home where my enemies ARE my family. The prophesy came to pass... Who'd'a'thunk? AND they are predominately Christian Baptist... Wow, come to think of it, my issues with my "Christ-like" family stem from my alternate faith and questionable sexuality, both of which "God hates." I love Jesus, but not to "save my soul" or because "he died for my sins." I love Jesus because ALL people deserve love. (Every time I say that, someone mentions Hitler or C. Manson or Elmo.... Never mind Elmo. The point is, yes, even Hitler needed respect and love. That's what Yeshua taught me.) So I take up Jesus' Sword, against an army of hypocristians, gay-haters, intolerant fascists and my own ignorant flesh and blood. I do this in the name of UNCONDITIONAL love and the PURSUIT of peace. I absolutely get high from putting closed minded priests and pastors to religious rest using their own faith as my "Sword." So I get what he meant by those words.

 

It is interesting to note that God "repented" his own sin. Now I'd like to clarify that in order to concede to a God, one must first have a God. Interesting note, indeed. I would like to reference Zeus and his father, Helios. Helios (Kronos, Chronus, etc) fed on his own children, the Gods. He consumed creation for pleasures sake and had no compassion or remorse. So his children, led by Zeus, fought against Kronos and the Titans so that they may have them locked in a Void for "eternity." Well, the same story is told eighty or so different ways, but that's the gist. God had a superior! It begs the question, does a Titan have a superior as well? And then, what if Ascension is humanly possible? What if the Human brain and heart are capable of "God-like" power? We understand so little of the Universe that, even in Science, such a possibility cannot be denied entirely. Arguable, nonetheless, but not impossible. To what levels will humanity reach through our evolution; to what higher consciousness are we destined? We once said that the Sun was the light of God. Galileo found "flaws" he called sun-spots on it's surface. The whole world called him crazy. A. Einstein said that light behaved as if both a particle and a wave and was severely dashed by the scientific community (patent official, looks kinda fishy). Even more recent, still, who ever dreamed that we could be in separate countries and communicate instantly. It takes a scope of understanding to push the limits of reality. Yeah, this paragraph took a tangent, but it's still kinda relate-able. Do forgive me if I show my insanity. Don't be too mean. Oh, I'm just joking, c'mon HIT ME! (And correct me where mistaken, I literally cross referenced none of this.)

[Acme]

...

Mostly in the bible god kills. God tells people to not kill and to not lie etc.

This is where I came in with citations of passages from the Bible that show God does indeed tell people to kill. These passages show your implication that God does not tell people to kill is mistaken.

 

Many people have not read the bible. Me to mine own genuine misfortune have actually read it.

I, to my own genuine fortune have read it as well. Moreover I have read it well enough to know exactly where to go for those citations I gave.

 

I think many of your accusations against the Bible are merely putting the passages out of context.

...

Taking the passages completely out of context to further a point that is mostly baseless is more ignorant than anything else.

I gave factual citations from the context of the Christian Bible which is the very base of Christianity. Since I knew those passages, I can not be ignorant of them.

 

I am old enough to be the great-grandfather of you & Fiver and to paraphrase Cat Stevens, your faults are that you are young. Relax and take it easy.

 

Okay, new to forum functionality, not doing the "quote" thing.

 

Those passages from Matthew are new to me. It's really difficult to twist those words in any context.

...

Yeah, this paragraph took a tangent, but it's still kinda relate-able. Do forgive me if I show my insanity. Don't be too mean. Oh, I'm just joking, c'mon HIT ME! (And correct me where mistaken, I literally cross referenced none of this.)

No worries & kudos for admitting your ignorance and acknowledging relevance. Glad to have been of help.

[Unity+]

I gave factual citations from the context of the Christian Bible which is the very base of Christianity. Since I knew those passages, I can not be ignorant of them.

Providing passages without explanation of the proper context is not factual citation.

 

Quoting out of context fallacy.

 

 

 

I am old enough to be the great-grandfather of you & Fiver and to paraphrase Cat Stevens, your faults are that you are young. Relax and take it easy.

False authority fallacy.

[Acme]

Providing passages without explanation of the proper context is not factual citation.

Quoting out of context fallacy.

But I gave explanation. They are passages from the Bible -which IS the context- wherein God instructs people to kill other people.

 

 

False authority fallacy.

Well, I think you mean 'appeal to authority'. I was less appealing to my advanced age as an authority and more to your youth as a lack of authority. I can appeal to the Bible's authority on how to treat children if you like. Here too it is fickle, from Jesus' suffer the little children to me, to spare the rod and spoil the child.

 

I should also point out that I do not buy into the title's assertion that Christianity has done nothing but damn humanity. I hold that Christianity has both blessed and damned humanity and that pointing out the contradictions is a worthwhile exercise.

[Unity+]

But I gave explanation. They are passages from the Bible -which IS the context- wherein God instructs people to kill other people.

 

 

Well, I think you mean 'appeal to authority'. I was less appealing to my advanced age as an authority and more to your youth as a lack of authority. I can appeal to the Bible's authority on how to treat children if you like. Here too it is fickle, from Jesus' suffer the little children to me, to spare the rod and spoil the child.

 

I should also point out that I do not buy into the title's assertion that Christianity has done nothing but damn humanity. I hold that Christianity has both blessed and damned humanity and that pointing out the contradictions is a worthwhile exercise.

But I don't see how killing is a contradiction. It would like saying that killing someone is a crime even though self-defense can involve killing, but it isn't a crime or bad in the first place.

[Delta1212]

This is where I came in with citations of passages from the Bible that show God does indeed tell people to kill. These passages show your implication that God does not tell people to kill is mistaken.

 

I, to my own genuine fortune have read it as well. Moreover I have read it well enough to know exactly where to go for those citations I gave.

 

I gave factual citations from the context of the Christian Bible which is the very base of Christianity. Since I knew those passages, I can not be ignorant of them.

 

I am old enough to be the great-grandfather of you & Fiver and to paraphrase Cat Stevens, your faults are that you are young. Relax and take it easy.

 

No worries & kudos for admitting your ignorance and acknowledging relevance. Glad to have been of help.

You do understand that there is a difference between the statements "God told people not to kill" and "God did not tell people to kill" right?

 

An example of God telling people to kill proves the second false, not the first.

[Acme]

You do understand that there is a difference between the statements "God told people not to kill" and "God did not tell people to kill" right?

...

Yes, I understand the difference. Fiveworlds implied God only tells people not to kill when he said "God tells people to not kill and to not lie etc." If he meant otherwise he is free to say so.

 

But I don't see how killing is a contradiction. It would [be] like saying that killing someone is a crime even though self-defense can involve killing, but it isn't a crime or bad in the first place.

The contradiction comes when considering the commandment [ostensibly God's instruction], though shalt not kill, and juxtaposing it with all the other passages wherein God instructs people to kill.

 

I'm not much interested in engaging in a debate with believers and/or apologists. People can and do use what is written in the Bible -whether rightly interpreted or no- to justify evil as well as good and that's the long and short of it. And as I said earlier, Christianity is not alone in promulgating these actions. Attempts to give a measure of whether more good or more evil has been done on religious grounds is a fool's errand.

[Unity+]

Yes, I understand the difference. Fiveworlds implied God only tells people not to kill when he said "God tells people to not kill and to not lie etc." If he meant otherwise he is free to say so.

 

The contradiction comes when considering the commandment [ostensibly God's instruction], though shalt not kill, and juxtaposing it with all the other passages wherein God instructs people to kill.

 

I'm not much interested in engaging in a debate with believers and/or apologists. People can and do use what is written in the Bible -whether rightly interpreted or no- to justify evil as well as good and that's the long and short of it. And as I said earlier, Christianity is not alone in promulgating these actions. Attempts to give a measure of whether more good or more evil has been done on religious grounds is a fool's errand.

I was just questioning the logic you were presenting.

[Acme]

I was just questioning the logic you were presenting.

And I was just explaining it.

[Vivec]

Well, it's like this: Christianity has done both good and bad with and without the help of powerful people. It is not light nor evil, but respects the balance between the two.

The words in the Bible have been translated many times. Anyone bilingual knows that chain translations misconstrue the original thought. I once translated the word "Light" through three different languages and then back to English. I got "Howl." If someone were to take original Hebrew and Aramaic scripts and translate them literally, I'm sure we'd be reading a different bible.

The FACT here is that no magical, wish-granting prayer-wizard ever TOLD anyone to kill anyone. This is called psychosis, when people start having daylight hallucinations and vivid delusions. It's skitzo, not divine inspiration. Though, I'm being painfully specific, I have a point: Christians and Jews alike believe that God has commanded the death of human kind before. They also believe that God was directly responsible for the genocide of an entire planet. The hypocrisy here is that "God commanded: Thou shalt not kill." Awfully funny sounding, isn't it?

It would appear that humans have been using faith as a means of controlling the mob since the words "In the beginning." And it's not difficult to do, either. Minds are very easily changed and humans are greatly flawed and weak of will.

[Acme]

Well, it's like this: Christianity has done both good and bad with and without the help of powerful people. It is not light nor evil, but respects the balance between the two.

The words in the Bible have been translated many times. Anyone bilingual knows that chain translations misconstrue the original thought. I once translated the word "Light" through three different languages and then back to English. I got "Howl." If someone were to take original Hebrew and Aramaic scripts and translate them literally, I'm sure we'd be reading a different bible.

The FACT here is that no magical, wish-granting prayer-wizard ever TOLD anyone to kill anyone. This is called psychosis, when people start having daylight hallucinations and vivid delusions. It's skitzo, not divine inspiration. Though, I'm being painfully specific, I have a point: Christians and Jews alike believe that God has commanded the death of human kind before. They also believe that God was directly responsible for the genocide of an entire planet. The hypocrisy here is that "God commanded: Thou shalt not kill." Awfully funny sounding, isn't it?

It would appear that humans have been using faith as a means of controlling the mob since the words "In the beginning." And it's not difficult to do, either. Minds are very easily changed and humans are greatly flawed and weak of will.

Pretty much agree with that all. On what I have bolded, we should add Greek, and in fact the Bibles we have were translated -and continue to be translated- by language scholars. Scholars mind you, not the ignorant.

 

The Biblical quotes I gave weren't out of context because I included the exact passages so anyone could go and read what came before or after the germane passage. Sure, I could have pasted the entire books, but we know how walls of text fly at fora. I used Bible Gateway and the New International Version. Let's see where that came from.

 

New International Version @ Wiki

...

Features

The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.[11] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.[12] The deuterocanonical books are not included in the translation.

Translation philosophy

 

The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts whose goal was to produce a more modern English language text than the King James Version. The translation took ten years and involved a team of over 100 scholars.[13] from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.[14]

 

The NIV is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought or literal and phrase by phrase translations.[15]

...

And of the King James Bible:

King James Version @ Wiki

...

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[6] The translation was done by over 40 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[7] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek and Latin. ...

So it goes.

 

Edit: Note that the King James translators weren't privy to the Dead Sea scrolls.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Acme

[MonDie]

To be fair to Moses, I haven't actually read any of his books. I just know what the incriminating verses are.

[Vivec]

Hmmm. Killed that point rather easily. I liked the reference though, very resourceful. Taught me something new. Still, there are concepts that can't be translated. These thoughts can't be written into anything except for rough descriptions, which still may become inaccurate. (That's it Vi'vi, recover smooth.) That's all I got. The rest of this kinda died quick... It was an awesome welcome, though, and I look forward to more! This forum is a bit intimidating to me. Like I said, I'm a little bit insane, but I'm eager to learn. I'ma stop following this thread and try to dive into the forum now. I just wanted to start somewhere I knew well. Christianity, attack or defense, is an awesome tool and I use it better than the American government sometimes. Hell, if I tried, I could show the Pope up on a thing or two. It goes two ways so often that even I lose to cynical people. With Christianity we can make many good things and destroy many things as well. Regardless of faith, the truth is a spiritual concept that can be interpreted individually. The fact remains that there exist forces beyond our human control. We do not understand these, yet we name them and give them definition. A pastor would say "be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the lord is." The Buddha would say "seek always the path of understanding." Wiccans use the phrase "wise ones" to describe their leaders. Scientists define their science as the pursuit of understanding. "Life is motion" and the "way" is progression. No matter our God or Science, the two are one and we are only a speck in the Grand Creation. Yet we continually have these conversations. Somehow, we instinctively know what we need in order to move forward emotionally, mentally, spiritually and physically. So here's my interpretation of Gods very first law, and I apologize for not sticking around for the fallout. I just like this forum.

Vi'vi's interpretation of God's law: Move!

[puppypower]

Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the 4th century AD. What is often represented to be the history of Christianity is really the history of this hybrid of Rome and Christianity. In that hybrid, Rome was the overlord and made changes to Christianity to meet the needs of the empire. Christianity was chosen by the Emperor Constantine because the courage of the Christian Soldiers in battle for the empire.

 

For example, Christmas is not in the New Testament, because it was based on a Pagan holiday that Rome merged to help bridge Christianity with Pagan religions, since both were also part of the empire. This why if you read the New Testament there is nothing to justify many of the actions that Christians are accused of. This tough side of Christianity was an extrapolation from Rome.

 

This paradoxical union of conquest and love, of reason and faith, lasted about 1000 years until the hybrid began to split. Both modern atheists and modern Christians came from that hybrid and often look at each other in the mirror of the hybrid.

Edited September 19, 2015 by puppypower

[Ragnarr Lodbrok]

Whatever in the OT God ordered people to kill or not is redudant. The Old Testament is not an important source of guidance for Christians. It is included as a holy book of Christianity because the New Testament does not have anough info about Jewish history - so Christains have to resort to an old Jewish book to see "how it all began". THE source of guidance for Christians is Jesus. Moses, Joshua and other Jewish prophets are cheifly historical figures.

 

I can see a lot of contribution that Christianity made to the Western world - we can begin with the knowledge of Latin that would be completely forgotten and was restored thanks to a group of monks in Ireland. Then we have cathedral schools and universities that constituted pretty much the only source of formal education in medieval Europe - and the only place where one could read and write. Then we have numerous Catholic scientists who until the Renaissance, made up the majority of scientists. We can mention monasteries that helped spread technological innovations around Europe.

[Acme]

Whatever in the OT God ordered people to kill or not is redudant. The Old Testament is not an important source of guidance for Christians.

I don't understand the first sentence. As to the second, the OT is of considerable guidance to the creationists and fundamentalists. While they may be a minority, they are loud, divisive, hypocritical, and arguably evilish groups in the US.

 

I can see a lot of contribution that Christianity made to the Western world - we can begin with the knowledge of Latin that would be completely forgotten and was restored thanks to a group of monks in Ireland. Then we have cathedral schools and universities that constituted pretty much the only source of formal education in medieval Europe - and the only place where one could read and write. Then we have numerous Catholic scientists who until the Renaissance, made up the majority of scientists. We can mention monasteries that helped spread technological innovations around Europe.

Yes well, other than the OP no one is contesting these facts. It is as easy to list evils done by Christianity, but as I said earlier, trying to establish some scoreboard is a fool's errand.

[Ragnarr Lodbrok]

95% of laws listed in the OT are not followed by Christians - the ideas of progressive revelation and agrogation come into play here. That's why I said all that killing in the OT does not matter.

 

Crimes committed in the past are not "crimes of Christianity" - they are either crimes of secular rulers or crimes of the Church. There is nothign in the teachings of Jesus and his apostles that justifies all these crimes.

[Acme]

95% of laws listed in the OT are not followed by Christians - the ideas of progressive revelation and agrogation come into play here. That's why I said all that killing in the OT does not matter.

Citation please. [agrogation???]

 

Crimes committed in the past are not "crimes of Christianity" - they are either crimes of secular rulers or crimes of the Church. There is nothign in the teachings of Jesus and his apostles that justifies all these crimes.

And what is the Church if not Christianity? As to Jesus justifying 'crimes' of the OT:

Matthew 5

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ...

Further on the notion of Christians not following the OT, we have only to look at the gal in Kentucky refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay & lesbian couples. Her protest and that of her supporters sporting "God hates fags" posters is based on Leviticus.

Leviticus 20

13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Because she is a government employee, she is also ignoring Jesus' admonition to render under Caesar what is Caesars' and unto God what is God's. Then of course she is also ignoring Jesus' admonition on divorce inasmuch as she has been married 4 times.

Mark 12

17 Then Jesus said to them, Give back to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods.

Matthew 5

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Where is the hue and cry of the apologists over this and similar Christian evils?

 

Same sort of hypocrisy and justification of crimes coming out of Islam as we are all painfully aware.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Acme

[Ragnarr Lodbrok]

 

 

Matthew 5

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ...

Jesus did fulfill the law. It is not binding on Christians precisely because he fulfilled it.

[Acme]

Jesus did fulfill the law. It is not binding on Christians precisely because he fulfilled it.

There would be no need of apologetics if there were nothing to apologize for. There is and there is.

[Ragnarr Lodbrok]

It's not apologetics, it's facts. I realize there are things in Christian theology that have trilions of interpretations and are really controversial - but abrogation of the old law is not one of them. It's about the least controversial topic in Christian theology and one of very few with nearly 100% agreement amongst CHristian churches.

 

In the US there is an extremely obscure Calvinist denomination called "Christian Reconstructionism" that says Mosaic law is still binding. It is currently represented by two organizations - the Chaldecon Foundation with 3 members and the American Vision with total membership of 5 people - which gives a total of 8 people - not a big number in a country of over 300 million people, eh?

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ragnarr Lodbrok

[Acme]

I don't quite get what you mean. Since Jesus himself was the fulfillment of the law, the law is considered to be no longer binding for Christians. That's the stance held by virtually every church in the world.

I mean that if the Bible didn't contain passages by which people justify evil [because the passages are evil], then there would be no need to make excuses/explanations/apologies for them as you just have.

 

In the US there is an extremely obscure Calvinist denomination called "Christian Reconstructionism" that says Mosaic law is still binding. It is currently represented by two organizations - the Chaldecon Foundation with 3 members and the American Vision with total membership of 5 people - which gives a total of 8 people - not a big number in a country of over 300 million people, eh?

The number doesn't matter; what matters is how effective 'they' are at getting the message out. Seems those 3 and 5 reached you and now the rest of us. And after all, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, etcetera each and all were and are one. Edited September 19, 2015 by Acme

[ydoaPs]

Jesus did fulfill the law. It is not binding on Christians precisely because he fulfilled it.

He did? I wasn't aware that the end of days had already happened. When, exactly, did the end of the world happen?