No True Scotsman

[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.