No True Scotsman

[Bad Wolf]

Oh, so i am right, glad you saw sense lek.

[Bibliofagus]

The poor fuckers on eastern island come to mind as well. They were 1800 years down the list of people to receive word on the good book.

---

The poor !#@&! on Easter Island always had salvation open to them based on the revelation God had given them.

Really? While not one of them accepted this revelation before the christians set foot on their island? Sheesh. Something must be seriously wrong with these people. How come?

Edit: (Excuse me for all the goofy errors.)

[Lek]

The poor !#@&! on Easter Island always had salvation open to them based on the revelation God had given them.

You just jumped the shark.

You're right. Thanks. We all make mistakes sometimes.

[Strongbad]

It's common for non-believers to condemn christianity for atrocities committed or perceived to be committed in the name of christianity. They use this to assert that christianity is an evil force in the world. A christian is defined as one who follows Christ. Therefore I ask if a nation or individual is truly following the teachings of Jesus Christ would they have committed those atrocities?

Um, I guess the answer to your question is "no". Now a question for you: Do you agree with the absurd Christian doctrine that a person could commit any number of atrocities, including murder, rape, theft, etc., but if afterwards they "accept Jesus", they are forgiven of those "sins", and get to spend "eternity" in heaven?

[DeistPaladin]

It's common for non-believers to condemn christianity for atrocities committed or perceived to be committed in the name of christianity. They use this to assert that christianity is an evil force in the world. A christian is defined as one who follows Christ. Therefore I ask if a nation or individual is truly following the teachings of Jesus Christ would they have committed those atrocities?

What teachings exactly?

First of all, I'd venture to say that most Christians don't even know what the Bible says about anything apart from certain choice passages they've been quoted routinely. I'm sure you've heard the joke about how Christians treat Jesus like a software package: scroll down without reading and click "I agree" at the end. It's no small irony that if you want to know what the Bible says, you're best bet is to speak with an atheist.

Second, those Christians who have read the Bible can still come to radically different conclusions about what Jesus, or other figures in the Bible, taught. The fact that Michael Moore and Fred Phelps can/could both consider themselves to be followers of Jesus only underscores this point. Now you may take issue with their interpretations of scripture but that's the point. It means what you think it means. People who follow Jesus look in a mirror and see him as a glorified self-reflection. Jesus was a capitalist, a communist, a rebel, an authoritarian, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, black, white, etc.

Third, the belief in Hell and the Christian faith-based scheme of salvation makes a lot of Jesus' more gentile sayings rather moot. In fact, I argue it is this very central doctrine of Christian thinking that makes it so dangerous.

If you really do believe that Hell is a real place where you really do go if you have not been saved by Jesus, the stakes are as high as they can be. If you do a little killing and a little torture to save more souls for all eternity, isn't that a small price to pay? What if murdering some unrepentant nonbeliever helps save your child from eternal Hell, how about now?

The bi-polar universe of Christianity doesn't help. There is no "Bob, the Neutral Christ". If you are not a follower of Jesus, then doesn't that narrow it down who you are serving or at best being duped by? This is why Christian fundamentalists see Satan's influence in all things outside their narrow definition of what Christianity means to them, sometimes even with things that are contradictory, such as science and New Age woo or Islam and homosexuality.

So since you can literally demonize your neighbors and the stakes of Hell are so urgent, you have the perfect recipe for sectarian atrocities, regardless of what Jesus said.

As an aside, if you can read the Gospels with a critical eye, it becomes apparent that Jesus' moral teachings are highly over-rated but that's a lengthier discussion for another thread.

[Lek]

The poor !#@&! on Easter Island always had salvation open to them based on the revelation God had given them.

Really? Yet not one of them accepted this revelation before the christians set goot their island? Sheesh. Something must be seriously wrong with these people. Hoe come?

Who said they didn't? We don't know if any of them received salvation or not. Only God knows. Of course they couldn't know the bible story. They would have believed in God based through his revelation to them through nature or whatever means God gave to them to know him.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

As the bible in its entirety appears to be open to interpretation (unless you're a literalist, which I guess is also an interpretation) I think the point is that unless one of those interpretations can be proven to supersede the others no christian can be perceived to be a 'better' or 'truer' than any other. Good or bad.

Therefor I'd have to ask what interpretation of these teachings of Jesus you're referring to and whether they're accepted by all of Christendom regardless of sect?

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus never urged us to commit atrocities.

Who said anything about committing atrocities? Surely your OP referred to anything that contravened this jesus bloke's teachings right? So by definition any behaviour that does not fall in with this contravenes it, no?

So what interpretation are you using, and how is this viewed by the many hundreds of Christian sects and is it accepted?

Really? Yet not one of them accepted this revelation before the christians set goot their island? Sheesh. Something must be seriously wrong with these people. Hoe come?

Who said they didn't? We don't know if any of them received salvation or not. Only God knows. Of course they couldn't know the bible story. They would have believed in God based through his revelation to them through nature or whatever means God gave to them to know him.

Ie, absolutely nothing?

Doesn't really seem that fair.

[Bad Wolf]

Who said they didn't? We don't know if any of them received salvation or not. Only God knows. Of course they couldn't know the bible story. They would have believed in God based through his revelation to them through nature or whatever means God gave to them to know him.

I'm pretty sure they had there own gods or spiritual beliefs, just like how the native americans and the inuits did before they met the white man. They had absolutely no concept of the god of the bible.

[Minimalist]

What he said here definitely wasn't christian doctrine.

He was the fucking pope.

[Bibliofagus]

Really? Yet not one of them accepted this revelation before the christians set goot their island? Sheesh. Something must be seriously wrong with these people. Hoe come?

Who said they didn't? We don't know if any of them received salvation or not. Only God knows. Of course they couldn't know the bible story. They would have believed in God based through his revelation to them through nature or whatever means God gave to them to know him.

Well. Your jesus said that. The only way to salvation is through him and whatnot. But never mind. I'm glad you feel this way. You are not a true christian.