That Christian compassion

philologos

Again, Zombrex, I'm really not so sure that it is either impossible to understand Jesus' teaching or impossible to live them out as He desired us to. Hermeneutical difficulties as far as I can tell are overplayed to a huge extent that it doesn't correspond with reality in Christian churches and communities. I don't have a huge amount of difficulty opening up the Bible with anyone and coming to a broad agreement on most occasions as to what it is saying.

King Mob: From time to time, we fall short. I believe that when this happens, people should simply repent and try again. Personally, I don't know where any of those people are at, but in doing this they've disobeyed what Jesus asked them to do in respect to those who disagreed with them.

There's no fallacy involved. It's perfectly valid to say that this behaviour doesn't line up with the Gospel. You misunderstood what I was saying initially.

As for Matthew 15, I did address your point above.

As for the so called "horrible parts in the Bible" (which IMO tend to be not horrible on proper analysis). I've opened up the Bible and honestly looked to the sections that you've quoted and engaged with them for the most part.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Again, Zombrex, I'm really not so sure that it is either impossible to understand Jesus' teaching or impossible to live them out as He desired us to.

It is not impossible to understand Jesus' teachings at all.

What is impossible to do is to apply Jesus apocalyptic teachings to societies bedded down for very Earthly life over years, decades and centuries, and not run into issues like those encountered in this piece.

There is a conflict there between the original teaching and the context that it is now applied that produces anger, resentment and fear on the part of Christians towards non-believers, which results in negative actions towards non-believers, from intolerance right up to violence.

Like I said, Jesus cannot be blamed for this. Christianity can.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: From time to time, we fall short. I believe that when this happens, people should simply repent and try again. Personally, I don't know where any of those people are at, but in doing this they've disobeyed what Jesus asked them to do in respect to those who disagreed with them.

But you are sure that they are not following Jesus's lessons. How do you know this beyond your own interpretations?
How precisely do you know that they are not simply reading the bible differently?
(The answer is you don't know that, but you might be a while addressing this.)

philologos wrote: »

There's no fallacy involved. It's perfectly valid to say that this behaviour doesn't line up with the Gospel. You misunderstood what I was saying initially.

No, it doesn't line up with your opinion of the Gospel, it can line up with theirs.
They are as Christian as you are. But this does not stop them from engaging in foul behaviour, it allows them to justify it.

You argument, regardless of how you try to phrase it is a no true scotsman by definition.

philologos wrote: »

As for Matthew 15, I did address your point above.

Well for a liberal definition of the word...
You added this in after you posted, I edited my previous post, but you are still avoiding several points as usual.
Why do you do that? It's dishonest and frustrating.

philologos

I sometimes edit my post several times before I finish if I feel I've missed something. It's not intentionally trying to hide anything.

Simply put, I believe it is the way Christians should deal with things because it's Biblically sound. That's pretty much the criteria I use for testing whether or not something is in line with Christian teaching. If it doesn't hold up Biblically, I doubt it unless someone can provide sufficient Biblical basis for it. I'm open to probing into the Bible with anyone in order to deepen my understanding as a Christian, and indeed it's something I do with other Christians I know on a regular basis.

I'm not seeing what points I avoided, I went through your post and covered what you said. In relation to Matthew 15, I think the sensible approach is to read the entire chapter and understand what's going on and why Jesus responds favourably to her at the end of the passage is key in that. If one is to go along the line and say it's anti-Gentile prejudice, it's acceptable to start saying that we should look to other cases where Jesus met with Gentiles in the New Testament. If those cases don't match, then we need to presume that there is something unique to the situation in Matthew 15 / Mark 7 that leads Jesus to speak that way.

That's a logical way of handling it to probe into the Scriptures accurately.

They are as Christian as you are. But this does not stop them from engaging in foul behaviour, it allows them to justify it.

I never said they didn't identify as being Christian. What I did say was that they are disobeying Christ's standard and have sinned against the girl, which is entirely sound.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I sometimes edit my post several times before I finish if I feel I've missed something. It's not intentionally trying to hide anything.

But you have, I asked you several times why you believe your interpretations to be superiour to the interpretations of these people. And I asked you several times about whether these people could be following the bible but with a different reading. You did not address either of these points. You constantly engage in this tactic in every thread we engage in.
It's annoying and dishonest.
If you can't answer these questions, you should say so as that is often the point I am trying to make.

philologos wrote: »

Simply put, I believe it is the way Christians should deal with things because it's Biblically sound. That's pretty much the criteria I use for testing whether or not something is in line with Christian teaching. If it doesn't hold up Biblically, I doubt it unless someone can provide sufficient Biblical basis for it. I'm open to probing into the Bible with anyone in order to deepen my understanding as a Christian, and indeed it's something I do with other Christians I know on a regular basis.

And all of this depends on the unsupported idea that you interpretation is superior, which you have failed to show or demonstrate.
Further more, even if you had shown this, it could still be the case that they are following the bible incorrectly, but believe that they are correct.

philologos wrote: »

I'm not seeing what points I avoided, I went through your post and covered what you said. In relation to Matthew 15, I think the sensible approach is to read the entire chapter and understand what's going on and why Jesus responds favourably to her at the end of the passage is key in that.

But I presented my interpretation and it clearly shows it's ok to emotionally torture people to make them Christian.
So how was I able to get this interpretation in the first place?

philologos wrote: »

If one is to go along the line and say it's anti-Gentile prejudice, it's acceptable to start saying that we should look to other cases where Jesus met with Gentiles in the New Testament. If those cases don't match, then we need to presume that there is something unique to the situation in Matthew 15 / Mark 7 that leads Jesus to speak that way.

That's a logical way of handling it to probe into the Scriptures accurately.

Except that does not actually address the point I made about it, nor does it discount my version of it. And I've no doubt that I can find just as much stuff to support my version.

philologos wrote: »

I never said they didn't identify as being Christian. What I did say was that they are disobeying Christ's standard and have sinned against the girl, which is entirely sound.

So why is it impossible that they believe that they are not disobeying Christ?

Because your argument is presupposed on your interpretation being supriour and infallible, both things you cannot show, and you know you can't show that. Hence why you are going to ignore my points...

Sarky

It makes sense to philologos, therefore it is logical. Isn't it obvious?

King Mob

Sarky wrote: »

It makes sense to philologos, therefore it is logical. Isn't it obvious?

I know, but the trick is getting him to actually admit that.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But you have, I asked you several times why you believe your interpretations to be superiour to the interpretations of these people. And I asked you several times about whether these people could be following the bible but with a different reading. You did not address either of these points. You constantly engage in this tactic in every thread we engage in.
It's annoying and dishonest.
If you can't answer these questions, you should say so as that is often the point I am trying to make.

I've explained already what exactly my position is on this. The Bible is nowhere near as ambiguous as people make out. The vast majority of times that I will ever open it with someone we will come to agreement on what it is saying despite denominational backgrounds. I find that atheists overplay this.

I find it dishonest that you claim that I didn't respond to this when I did. Simply put, if anyone can point towards Biblical passages that explain their position and reason them out, I'd be happy to accept them if they are explained in a consistent manner.

I have a distinct feeling that this is going to go around and around in circles, with you yet again essentially implying that it is impossible for people to come to agreement on the Scriptures. If we're to make any progress in this discussion, I think we need to try and appreciate a little more what the other is saying. Otherwise it's just going to be repeating the same thing ad-infinitum because one isn't convinced by the other (I.E I'm not really all that convinced by what you are saying, and vice versa).

I still believe that God is clear on this issue of whether or not it is acceptable for Christians to hate non-Christians. Jesus is crystal.

King Mob wrote: »

And all of this depends on the unsupported idea that you interpretation is superior, which you have failed to show or demonstrate.
Further more, even if you had shown this, it could still be the case that they are following the bible incorrectly, but believe that they are correct.

And your posts depend entirely on the premise that it is impossible for Christians to read the Bible and agree as to what it says. I disagree with you, as in practice this isn't really true.

As for people believing they are correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is so IMO. I'm sure you know this as well as I do. If you believe that you are correct, and then can be clearly shown to be disobeying Jesus' teachings which as I've shown you are crystal clear on this issue then unless you're willing to say that you are more correct than Jesus, you can't be.

King Mob wrote: »

But I presented my interpretation and it clearly shows it's ok to emotionally torture people to make them Christian.
So how was I able to get this interpretation in the first place?

I've shown you that it is inconsistent given how firstly, the passage is structured, and secondly how Jesus engages with people of varying backgrounds throughout.

King Mob wrote: »

Except that does not actually address the point I made about it, nor does it discount my version of it. And I've no doubt that I can find just as much stuff to support my version.

Actually, I do doubt it.

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it impossible that they believe that they are not disobeying Christ?

As I've explained above, because Jesus is extremely clear about it.

King Mob wrote: »

Because your argument is presupposed on your interpretation being supriour and infallible, both things you cannot show, and you know you can't show that. Hence why you are going to ignore my points...

Not at all. It's about the fact that it is clear to any reader as I've shown you. I can't show you that my interpretation is infallible, but I can show you that Jesus said to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us in clear text.

I think if you were honest, you'd admit that too from reading it.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I've explained already what exactly my position is on this. The Bible is nowhere near as ambiguous as people make out. The vast majority of times that I will ever open it with someone we will come to agreement on what it is saying despite denominational backgrounds. I find that atheists overplay this.

I find it dishonest that you claim that I didn't respond to this when I did. Simply put, if anyone can point towards Biblical passages that explain their position and reason them out, I'd be happy to accept them if they are explained in a consistent manner.

You have not explained you position on either of these questions. You have not explained why your intrepation is superior, you have only made reference to a strawman argument. Nor have you addressed why these people can't also be following the bible as you assume the first bit, that your interpretation is superior.

philologos wrote: »

I have a distinct feeling that this is going to go around and around in circles, with you yet again essentially implying that it is impossible for people to come to agreement on the Scriptures. If we're to make any progress in this discussion, I think we need to try and appreciate a little more what the other is saying. Otherwise it's just going to be repeating the same thing ad-infinitum because one isn't convinced by the other (I.E I'm not really all that convinced by what you are saying, and vice versa).

That is not what I am arguing, it is a dishonest strawman that I called you out of before, which surprisingly you ignored.

I never once claimed that it is impossible to find agreement. If you think I have, point out where or admit that you cannot.

Nor does my argument rely on the above strawman, only that people can take different meanings to parts of the bible that you do, which is plainly evident.

philologos wrote: »

I still believe that God is clear on this issue of whether or not it is acceptable for Christians to hate non-Christians. Jesus is crystal.

Super and I posted to a passage that I could interpret as being a justification of the behaviour we are discussing.
You interpretation allows you to get a different meaning form that story (though it was silly and does not explain away the horribleness of it) and place emphasis on a different passage.

So why can't other people do the same?

philologos wrote: »

And your posts depend entirely on the premise that it is impossible for Christians to read the Bible and agree as to what it says. I disagree with you, as in practice this isn't really true.

Strawman again.

philologos wrote: »

As for people believing they are correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is so IMO. I'm sure you know this as well as I do. If you believe that you are correct, and then can be clearly shown to be disobeying Jesus' teachings which as I've shown you are crystal clear on this issue then unless you're willing to say that you are more correct than Jesus, you can't be.

Yes, that part of my point. Even if you can show that you interpretation of the bible is the only valid one, these people could still think that they are following the bible.

However since you can't show that, your version is just as valid as theirs.

philologos wrote: »

I've shown you that it is inconsistent given how firstly, the passage is structured, and secondly how Jesus engages with people of varying backgrounds throughout.

But I can argue that there's plenty of other examples of Jesus and god being horrible monsters and emotional torturing people to get them to become Christian. Abraham's story comes to mind.

You are trying to make it about Jesus's attitude to non believers, but I have twisted my interpretation to make it about Jesus using cruel tactics to save people, perhaps like the people making the comments to that girl are doing.

philologos wrote: »

As I've explained above, because Jesus is extremely clear about it.

Not at all. It's about the fact that it is clear to any reader as I've shown you.

Then why, later in the narrative does he act hatefully towards the Canaanite woman at all when he says that he shouldn't do that?
To test her faith and make her become a true Christian?
Exactly like my twisted interpretation justifies?

philologos wrote: »

I can't show you that my interpretation is infallible, but I can show you that Jesus said to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us in clear text.

And Jesus also said it's ok to insult and belittle and humiliate and emotional torture someone as long as they break down and become Christian.

philologos wrote: »

I think if you were honest, you'd admit that too from reading it.

Yes I do think the passage you quoted is clear, but others and most of the rest of the bible contradict it entirely. And that even a passage as clear as that can still be interpreted if you really really wanted to.

philologos wrote: »

Actually, I do doubt it.

Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge required to counter this.
But I'm sure the guys on the forum can provide plenty of quotes and passages that do support the idea it's ok to attack non-believers given enough interpretation.

fisgon

The point is less about the behaviour of those christians making threats against a sixteen year old girl. You will always get this, attempts to intimidate from individuals.

This is more about the absolute silence from christian leaders and christians themselves about the issue. No condemnation, no outrage, no appeal for tolerance. This is what the true face of christianity has been for centuries. Christians simply do not stand up against the abuses of christianity. It wasn't christians who stopped the inquisition, it was the Englightenment and the advance of secular government. No catholic stood up during the 20th century in Ireland agaisnt the abuses of the church. It took the Spanish church decades to even raise a word of protest against the catholic fascist dictatorship of Franco.

The same can be said of Islam. Religion corrals people in to frightened, defensive mindsets where literally any despicable act can be justified, and no outrage is ever condemned. This is why the whole reaction is typical of christianity.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Lazy quotation from Scripture isn't particularly clever or useful in this discussion.

My quotation above wasn't lazy. On the contrary, it showed that Jesus knew ahead of time exactly what kind of trouble he intended to cause and he was happy to cause it. Jesus intended to cause trouble and he succeeded.

This, incidentally, is one of the few biblical predictions which has actually turned out to be true.

philologos wrote: »

Essentially what I'm saying isn't that I'm right, but that God is right. I submit to Him.

And essentially what everybody here is saying is that you are creating your own personal interpretation of the religious stories in the bible, and declaring it's perfect. Implying that where your personal interpretation is different from anybody else's, then your personal interpretation is the right one. This is something you share with most other religious believers -- your belief that you are incapable of making mistakes in interpretation and that you alone are in perfect harmony with the beliefs and wishes of the creator of the universe -- a position of almost shocking arrogance.

philologos wrote: »

The Bible is nowhere near as ambiguous as people make out. [...] with you yet again essentially implying that it is impossible for people to come to agreement on the Scriptures.

I don't think anybody's implying that it's impossible for people to agree, we're simply pointing out that people don't agree. The christians who are persecuting this 16-year old girl believe they're doing the right thing and you believe they're not. A quick check down through what you've posted suggests that your strongest feelings on the way that this 16-year old girl is that "she was treated horribly and I could never advocate that". You haven't, so far as I can see, condemned the people responsible and as fisgon points out, that's fairly typical of the ingroup mindset which is such an unfortunate feature of most religions, including yours.

Out of interest, do you think that Jessica Ahlquist was right to ask for the religious text to be taken down?

robindch

A bit more on how Alhquist has been treated:

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it

Which says that police have taken the multiple threats of violence seriously and are currently patrolling her house and the school.

Sarky

fisgon wrote: »

The point is less about the behaviour of those christians making threats against a sixteen year old girl. You will always get this, attempts to intimidate from individuals.

This is more about the absolute silence from christian leaders and christians themselves about the issue. No condemnation, no outrage, no appeal for tolerance. This is what the true face of christianity has been for centuries. Christians simply do not stand up against the abuses of christianity. It wasn't christians who stopped the inquisition, it was the Englightenment and the advance of secular government. No catholic stood up during the 20th century in Ireland agaisnt the abuses of the church. It took the Spanish church decades to even raise a word of protest against the catholic fascist dictatorship of Franco.

The same can be said of Islam. Religion corrals people in to frightened, defensive mindsets where literally any despicable act can be justified, and no outrage is ever condemned. This is why the whole reaction is typical of christianity.

That's pretty much it, I think. Christianity might be taken a lot more seriously if christians stood up against people like those threatening and abusing that girl, and said "Cut that sh*t out, it's not christian!" But it almost never happens. Possibly because no two groups can ever seem to agree on what being christian actually entails. You'd swear that each group interpreted the same book in multiple different ways to justify their own prejudices and opinions by giving them divine backing. But of course that's just silly, isn't it?

Galvasean

I like how I was quoted in this thread despite not posting in it

quietriot

I've been following this from the start and was delighted to see she had won. Upholding the constitution of the USA, something for everyone there to be proud about, right?

The reaction from Christians is appalling and the acceptance of their behaviour locally and even nationally is abhorrent. The threats appear to be a complete non-issue and there appears to be a belief that she brought it upon herself.

Very disturbing.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

My quotation above wasn't lazy. On the contrary, it showed that Jesus knew ahead of time exactly what kind of trouble he intended to cause and he was happy to cause it. Jesus intended to cause trouble and he succeeded.

Jesus knew that people wouldn't respond well to the Gospel, that people would marginalise their family members if they accepted Jesus. This has happened and happens in numerous countries around the world unfortunately.

robindch wrote: »

And essentially what everybody here is saying is that you are creating your own personal interpretation of the religious stories in the bible, and declaring it's perfect. Implying that where your personal interpretation is different from anybody else's, then your personal interpretation is the right one. This is something you share with most other religious believers -- your belief that you are incapable of making mistakes in interpretation and that you alone are in perfect harmony with the beliefs and wishes of the creator of the universe -- a position of almost shocking arrogance.I don't think anybody's implying that it's impossible for people to agree, we're simply pointing out that people don't agree. The christians who are persecuting this 16-year old girl believe they're doing the right thing and you believe they're not. A quick check down through what you've posted suggests that your strongest feelings on the way that this 16-year old girl is that "she was treated horribly and I could never advocate that". You haven't, so far as I can see, condemned the people responsible and as fisgon points out, that's fairly typical of the ingroup mindset which is such an unfortunate feature of most religions, including yours.

I believe that you and they are wrong, due to the fact that Jesus is abundantly clear about whether or not it is acceptable to hate. That's clear for all Christians. I don't see how one could mistake the passage that I quoted earlier. It says very clearly that one is meant to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. It isn't quite compatible with shouting down a girl for disagreeing with you.

I guess this is the difference between saying that God has spoken and is clear, and the idea that God has not spoken. That issue we're not going to resolve too quickly.

I condemn those who seem to have missed the point of the Gospel by speaking words of hate against this girl. Yes.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, do you think that Jessica Ahlquist was right to ask for the religious text to be taken down?

Looking at the prayer (which I linked to earlier), I don't think it warranted a lawsuit. Having said that, the response towards her has been an absolute disgrace.

Sarky

You answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Jesus knew that people wouldn't respond well to the Gospel, that people would marginalise their family members if they accepted Jesus. This has happened and happens in numerous countries around the world unfortunately.

Indeed it has. But now that christianity is the majority religion, the shoe is on the other foot and the christians now feel it their duty to make life miserable for minority viewpoints.

philologos wrote: »

I guess this is the difference between saying that God has spoken and is clear, and the idea that God has not spoken. That issue we're not going to resolve too quickly.

You're the one saying that your deity has spoken clearly. We're the ones pointing out that christians can't agree amongst themselves much beyond the very basics. And that's aside from the fact that we don't think he said anything since we don't think he's up there sending down ambiguous, or unambiguous, pieces of ancient prose.

philologos wrote: »

Having said that, the response towards her has been an absolute disgrace.

We agree on something

philologos wrote: »

Looking at the prayer (which I linked to earlier), I don't think it warranted a lawsuit.

Didn't ask whether it warranted a lawsuit -- it certainly didn't.

I asked whether you thought she should have asked for it to be taken down.

Do you think she should have? As Sarky says, a simple yes, or no answer would be great.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Do you think she should have? As Sarky says, a simple yes, or no answer would be great.

She was upholding the US constitution. So ironically these Christians are ant-America! :eek:

Gbear

Galvasean wrote: »

She was upholding the US constitution. So ironically these Christians are ant-America! :eek:

:pac:

These cases are always seriously depressing. Some children (lets not forget these are children here) are ostracised, abused and threatened because of their beliefs. Can you imagine how ape**** the media and the bible-thumpers would go if the shoe was on the other foot?

There was a case where a kid was kicked out of his house and his parents refused to pay for his college education because he "came out" as an atheist.

You'd wonder can the christians in these cases can actually read. If they read either their Bibles or their constitution i'm sure it could clear up a lot of this mess.

Turtwig

:pac: