Christianity Is Dangerous

[Christianbookworm]

No one's saying that violence is the first course of action! Thread derailed!

[Cerealman]

I think multiple fronts here. Christian converts rejected by both Gentiles and Jews. Rome destroying Jerusalem. Etc. I don't think Jesus is calling for violence, but giving prophecy as to what would happen.

He may or may not be calling for violence but he most certainly not calling himself "hippy jesus"(where did that term come from?)

[JohnnyP]

He may or may not be calling for violence but he most certainly not calling himself "hippy jesus"(where did that term come from?)

Right, I believe Jesus executed judgment on Jerusalem using Rome, as Babylon was also used in a similar way, to start.

Edit/add: Some Jews even believe God did much the same:

While the First Temple was destroyed due to idol worship, illicit relationships and murder, our Sages attribute the destruction of the Second Temple to the baseless hatred that prevailed among the Jews. -Chabad

[Meh Gerbil]

Rational Gaze was the first to use the term hippy Jesus.
I used the phrase when responding to him for the sake of clarity.

[Darth Xena]

Jesus repeats the same standard in the gospels.
Jesus then went on to live the example even though it cost him his life.

The Bible is very clear on this point.

Wait..... Gerbz you seemed to decry the very real answer that many atrocious acts were done by people who acted contrary to their professed faith as a lame excuse, yet you are in effect arguing the same thing. By stating that so,etching is very clear, you arguing that those who don't do it are acting contrary to Jesus.

I don't understand how it is okay when you do it but cheap when others do?

[Darth Xena]

Well, I thought I'd go back and take a closer look at this, though I was hoping to see a response to my last post (since I was seeking clarification).


Do you have any actual examples of this? I can see a poor apologist waving abuse away by claiming the abusers weren't real Christians, but your assertion strikes me as unrealistic even for a minority of apologists, let alone a tendency.

What you're doing here is exactly what you decried in your first sentence; you're simply erring in the opposite direction.

I agree it's not a great argument. Would the eradication of slavery in England be a better one?

You're over-generalizing and/or using hyperbole here. I agree it's not a great argument. Is it one you come across often?

There you go again, taking the worst examples you can come up with and using them to tar Christianity in general.

No, he just has an unreasonable fear that a tiny majority of off the wall dingbats are somehow going to seize control of a republic. He needs to learn a little perspective.

Er, not on a typical morning, even though off-the-wall dingbats tend to make good news copy.

Marketing? I wasn't aware we were called to market.

And, yet again, you take the worst example you can find and splatter the rest of the vast majority with its filth.

Er, no. In the case of abuse, the fear is grounded in their highly warped view of reality. It's not their fault that their view is warped, but it's not mine either. I can endeavor to change their view, but only if they're willing to listen. Christians who perpetrate violence in the name of religion are seldom remembered fondly; rather, it is those who willingly suffered violence without returning it in kind who are held up as shining examples of the faith.

I don't expect abused people to be polite about what abused them. Abuse is horrific and leaves psychological scars that are invariably difficult to heal. I don't recall seeing any evidence that a sizable percentage of skeptics suffered abuse at the hands of Christians. Perhaps you'd like to share some?

As I've mentioned in this thread, any large group of humanity is likely to have practitioners of abuse and violence in its ranks - including skeptics. Every single time skeptics have attained power it's been associated with a bloodbath, from the French Revolution to the Khmer Rouge. If anything, skeptics should be even more afraid of themselves coming to power.

As it happens, I don't want Christians to come to power in a theocracy either, because power corrupts.

I have a parting question for you. Now that you've denounced in no uncertain terms bad apologetics, what do you think would be a good (or at least less bad) way to approach to subject? Any poseur with a pen keyboard can tear something down. It takes rather more to raise an edifice instead.

Was this answered?

[Darth Executor]

When Peter used the sword in the garden what happened?

Christ saved Peter from going up against a few dozen armed men and getting himself killed. Peter didn't want Jesus to die but Jesus came to die so Peter was both in the wrong and being stupid, albeit for well meaning reasons. I fail to see how this verse is a teaching on anything in regards to whether fighting or killing is allowed, other than that it's a bad idea for one man to fight off a small army?

[Darth Xena]

Gerbz forgive me if I am wrong/out of line (skimmed a great deal-- read mostly just your exchange with the Pig) but it seems like you are embarrassed by some of the OT?

[Darth Executor]

Was this answered?

There are a lot of things "Gerbil" has yet to answer.

[Juvenal]

You think people who lay down their lives for enemies are doormats?
Here is a nasty little secret: It takes power over an enemy to exact revenge, but it takes power over your enemy and power over yourself to show mercy.
I think loving one's enemy is the toughest thing a man can do.

[TimelessTheist]

I don't have a problem with the crusaders, but they, like all people, were shades of gray.

You should probably know that there's a lot more to it than that. There are reasons besides "MONAAAAAAAAAAAAY" that the Crusaders ended up attacking the Byzantines.

The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
by Jonathan Philips

This book explains it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r376MkZwLI

And here it is in video form.

[Christianbookworm]

It wasn't the loving your enemy, it was all a part of the plan. In other words, Jesus purpoesefully did what he did to save others as a result. He had to die a shameful death. It's just that a herioc sacrifice should have meaning and not be a senseless one.

[Meh Gerbil]

Wait..... Gerbz you seemed to decry the very real answer that many atrocious acts were done by people who acted contrary to their professed faith as a lame excuse, yet you are in effect arguing the same thing. By stating that so,etching is very clear, you arguing that those who don't do it are acting contrary to Jesus.

I don't understand how it is okay when you do it but cheap when others do?

Two different debates have sprung up in this thread.
You've done a nice job of bringing them together in a way that appears a contradiction.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain.


REGARDING ATROCITIES AND THE CHURCH
When talking with Skeptics who express fear of Christian rule, especially those that have been hurt by Christians or those who can point to the long history of abuse by Christians, it is counter productive to expect them to recognize all of the fine distinctions those of us in the faith recognize. Double talk about who is a real Christian and who isn't just looks silly. By way of example, how do you feel about used car salesmen? Would you find the claim by a used car salesman "Hey, I'm not like those guys" to be convincing? Of course not. You might come to believe that after he earned your trust and kept your trust over a period of many years - he'd be demonstrating that he's different through personal, one-on-one interaction.

What wouldn't convince you dozens of posts by the used car salesman telling you how you're an idiot for not recognizing that he's different.
In fact, how many posts from a used car salesman wherein he claims he's different would you have to read before you concluded he's desperate?

I've found it's better to admit that those bearing the name of Christ have done horrible things and that the skeptic has every rational reason to be terrified of Christian rule. Expecting someone who doesn't believe there is a God to accept that idea that you're different because of God is ridiculous. After that, go on and develop a real relationship with that person until they come to see that you're someone that can be trusted. They'll know us by our love, Dee Dee, not by our ability to splice history in an never ending argument about who poked who in the eye first.

To summarize this point: It isn't that the answer that is given to the skeptic is wrong, it's just he's in a place where it isn't going to make sense.


REGARDING THE LOVE OF CHRIST
Now inside the body of Christ it makes sense to discuss the primacy of Divine Love. This distinction is for believers only. God's love is a non sequitur for the skeptic so the discussion isn't for him until such time as the Lord makes the skeptic ready. My posts on the love of Christ aren't for the unbelievers in the room and certainly not something for them to understand. As you can see, it is a hard sell to Christians - Christians who depend upon it don't even believe it exists.

To summarize this point: My points about loving our enemies aren't for dealing with skeptics. It is an in-house debate.

I'll only be responding to Dee Dee should she ask for clarification.
Otherwise I'm done with this thread.

[Meh Gerbil]

Gerbz forgive me if I am wrong/out of line (skimmed a great deal-- read mostly just your exchange with the Pig) but it seems like you are embarrassed by some of the OT?

Romans claims vengeance is reserved for God.
I don't have a problem with that.

[Darth Xena]

Gerbz do Christians have every right to be terrified of secular rule?

I think we should all just be appropriately afraid of power.

And right answers sometimes don't make sense to some. They are still right, no?