For good people to do bad things...

[Ryft]

If the appalling acts in the Old Testament are Christian the perform ...

That made my brain explode. I can't even guess at what you were trying to say to edit it.

Am I wrong in reading that Jesus supported the Old Testament?

Maybe. It depends entirely on what you mean by "supported." Jesus was the promised Messiah that the old covenant system pointed toward. He supported the Old Testament in the sense of explaining and fulfilling its messianic promises, including the arrival of a new covenant system between God and his chosen people in Christ. The sense in which Jesus "supported the Old Testament" is carefully laid out in the books of John, Romans, Galatians, etc., especially the book of Hebrews.

What I mean is that Christians interpret the Bible in different ways. And while it may be considered unchristian to do such appalling acts, how could you say Christians aren't Christians for doing them?

Again, as I already explained, "murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs, but those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically" (Christianity being that doctrinal body constituting the new covenant under Jesus Christ). If you hold that the violent destruction of abortion providers can be substantiated by cherry-picked verses from Christian scriptures, please provide one or more examples of such. Otherwise your assertion is devoid of any reality. I believe it was Christopher Hitchens who advanced the maxim, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." (Note: If you cannot find even the hint of a "cherry-pick" example from the New Testament, that ought to tell you something about the state of it being Christian.)

[infidel666]

Church folks burning "witches" at the stake two or three centuries back. In modern times, a father "honor killing" his daughter. Is that quote really so hard to understand?

[Retorth]

Apparently so.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically" (Christianity being that doctrinal body constituting the new covenant under Jesus Christ). If you hold that the violent destruction of abortion providers can be substantiated by cherry-picked verses from Christian scriptures, please provide one or more examples of such. Otherwise your assertion is devoid of any reality. I believe it was

Rather disappointing that you're unable to do better than the no true Scotsman fallacy.


Christianity began condoning [even rewarding] the most appalling acts from the time it became the Roman State religion in the the C4th.It began with the Gnostics,and went on to suppress any and all opposition,violently,for centuries: EG: Persecution and massacre of the Cathars,which led directly the foundation of The Inquisition. European Protestants went around burning heretics and witches for a couple of hundred years.They even hung a bunch of witches in America.

American Christians (and not just in the South) continued to justify slavery by appealing to the Torah ("the curse of Ham) until the Civil War.The Quakers were a voice in the wilderness in their active opposition to slavery.

Both Catholic and Protestant were responsible for over 1000 years of virulent antisemitism,which made the Nazis Holocaust possible.

To this day, Christians continue cherry pick from the Torah when it suits them.My favourite is justification used for the still rampant homophobia found throughout Chistendom. I think it's Leviticus 18.22 which is most widely quoted. This seems at odds with the claim of many Christians that Jesus perfected the law.[Rather than Saul who de-Jewed Christianity,taking out the hardest bits]


My perception is ALL believers cherry pick to some degree.They have no choice.The holy books contain so many contradictions that each person us forced to choose that which reflects their needs and their character.


People have been making the same fatuous claims for 2000 years,Viz: "I KNOW God said---God wants----Gods is pleased by--God is angered by ---Christianity is---X y or Z---- and those who disagree with me are not REAL Christians [like me]"


Arcanus, I respect your intellect and apparent depth of character.You lose that respect when you presume to speak authoratively about Christianity. There is no such thing as a universal Christian spokesperson.

Your comment about abortion is beneath you. Christian morality and concomitant behaviour is often implied AS INTERPRETED. (just as are say rights under the US constitution,such as freedom FROM religion)

[Ryft]

Rather disappointing that you're unable to do better than the No True Scotsman fallacy.

First, as I have argued previously, that fallacy is committed only when there is an ad hoc shifting of the goal posts, and I have not made any ad hoc moves nor even shifted the goal posts in the first place. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise if you disagree. What I have done is indicate or identify the basis, as established and consistently held for hundreds of centuries before I existed, upon which beliefs and behaviors are evaluated as 'Christian', beginning with the original and still held etymology of the term (as derived from the ancient koine Greek). Second, it is bad reasoning to think that X is what Christianity teaches simply because Christians did X, a non-sequitur akin to thinking that because Buddhists in Myanmar were persecuting Christians, burning their churches to the ground and forcing them to either convert to Buddhism or leave the country, that therefore this is what Buddhism teaches. Third, most atrocities attributed to the Christian religion (e.g., the Crusades) were predicated not by religious forces but political ones (a tempting conflation arising from the church and state being the same entity, yet there is a difference between what the state did and what the church taught); e.g., Aquinas' justification for the inquisition invoked no central doctrine of Christianity (moreover, some conflicts were waged as a defense rather than unprovoked assault; e.g., the Crusades, q.v. the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim, the Seljuk Turks, etc.). And so forth. One can cite examples of violence, but the salient issue is whether those circumstances are historical or theological; i.e., Judeo-Christian history (which is violent) versus Islamic theology (which commands violence).

See also: Meic Pearse, The Gods of War: Is Religion the Primary Cause of Violent Conflict?; Richard Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism; David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War; Chris Hedges, When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists.

[Dotard]

Arcanus denys the christian bible commands violence? The bible doesn't command 'stone this one', 'put that one to death', 'kill 'em all' etc. etc.?

---

Islamic theology does not command violence. It is a religion of peace. It's only some of clergy of Islam support murderous violence and terrorist activity and yes, it follows from their beliefs, but those beliefs are not Islamic beliefs. Islam neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically.

See what I did there?

[Edwardo Piet]

Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically

As I said, if Jesus supported the OT as a whole, then how could you say that believers in Christ are not Christians and are Unchristian if they condone the horror in the OT?

Does Jesus condone all of the OT or does he just condone bits of it? Am I wrong when I read at SAB, that Jesus condones the whole thing and says he comes not to bring peace but a sword?

If you hold that the violent destruction of abortion providers can be substantiated by cherry-picked verses from Christian scriptures, please provide one or more examples of such.

I'll dig out TGD and supply a quote as soon as I can and as soon as I remember after today. I read it ages ago...and my memory is too terrible to quote the source, etc. I thought it was well known that Christians who bomb abortion clinics aren't doing it for non-religious reasons. The whole thing about the sanctity of life is more common in religion than in secularism, right?

(Note: If you cannot find even the hint of a "cherry-pick" example from the New Testament, that ought to tell you something about the state of it being Christian.)

Well any time when part of the Bible (I never said specifically NT) that is unpleasant is chosen to be metaphorical, when it could just as easily be read literally, is cherry-picking. I know hardly anything about the Bible, but I never expected you to deny cherry-picking altogether, to say that no Christians cherry-pick (if that's what you're saying?), are you saying all Christians are perfect in their interpreting or something?

EvF

[Ryft]

Can you clean up the quote tags, Evie, so I can more easily reply?

[Edwardo Piet]

Apologies, I seem to be in a bit of a mess lol.

EvF

[Ryft]

As I said, if Jesus supported the Old Testament as a whole ...

I already responded to the "Jesus supported the Old Testament" question. Please incorporate my response within your reply, such that it reflects the point rather than ignores it.

I thought it was well-known that Christians who bomb abortion clinics aren't doing it for non-religious reasons. The whole thing about the sanctity of life is more common in religion than in secularism, right?

I already addressed this point (Msg. #47; emphasis added): "I know they bomb abortion clinics because of their beliefs. My point is that those beliefs are not Christian beliefs because that religion 'not only does not condone such acts but in fact condemns it.' Pro-life beliefs are consistent with Christianity, but violence against abortion providers does not follow from pro-life beliefs. Rather, it follows from a mandate for violence that goes far beyond simply being against abortion. Murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs, certainly—but those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically."

Well, any time when part of the Bible (I never said specifically NT) that is unpleasant is chosen to be metaphorical, when it could just as easily be read literally, is cherry-picking.

First, the issue does not pivot on some Old Testament passage being metaphorical versus literal. Second, some parts of the Old Testament—and the Scriptures overall—are explicitly metaphorical; for example, the prophetic vision of the beasts in the 7th chapter of Daniel, which would be incoherent to take as literal, as though Daniel 7:1 did not exist. And finally, as already said, "if you cannot find even the hint of a 'cherry-pick' example from the New Testament," that is, if you cannot find examples anywhere but in the Jewish Tanakh, "that ought to tell you something about the state of it being Christian."

[Are you saying that no Christians cherry-pick?]

That is not even close to what I said.