No True Scotsman

[DeistPaladin]

What you're saying here can be applied to any system of beliefs.

Not really because the whole package of Christianity includes more than Jesus' sayings about peace and love. It includes the doctrine of Hell, the struggle between Jesus and Satan and the faith-based scheme of salvation. You can't just focus on some loving things Jesus said and ignore the implications of a belief in the Devil or in Hell. For that matter, you can't just ignore what Jesus himself had to say about Hell.

The foundation of your implied argument behind your question in the OP seems to be a classic case of Cherry Picking but please do correct me if I have it wrong. You seem to be saying "Jesus said 'turn the other cheek', 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others...' so obviously no one who's a Christian could commit a sectarian atrocity". Is that your assertion?

A person's interpretation of what he's been taught from family and society can be interpreted and twisted the same way. But that doesn't invalidate the true teachings that he received.

Well there's the problem, isn't it?

Again, what are the True Teachings of Jesus ™?

Naturally, you think you're the one who got it right. Maybe you think Micheal Moore and Fred Phelps both got it wrong? Or just one of them? Or maybe both are right on different points? Perhaps so but how can we be sure? The source of the alleged teachings (and I say "alleged" because we have nothing directly from Jesus but, if Christian claims are correct, the hearsay testimony of Mark, penned at least 40 years after the ministry) isn't available for comment or clarification.

Jesus himself never sees fit to explain anything to anybody anymore. He once did, if Paul's testimony is to be taken seriously. The Book of Acts of the Apostles is drenched in overt communications from Jesus and displays of divine power. The Book of Revelation is, as the name implies, a divine revelation. Yet, for whatever reason, Jesus has implemented a strict policy of radio silence in the last 2000 years.

In sum, the problem with your counter-argument is that interpretation IS the only way we can know what it means to be a "True Christian" ™ and the wild variety of Christianities in the world today attest that identifying and parsing the "True Teachings of Jesus" ™ is a matter of controversy.

Spend some time in a courtroom and see how many misinterpretations of the law there are. That doesn't make our laws a bad thing.

Well, since you invoked the court room allusion...

Imagine Jesus is on trial for War Crimes.

Now, imagine me as the prosecuting attorney and you as the defense attorney. I think we can agree that the facts of the case include:

• Followers of Jesus committed atrocities
  
• Jesus, as an omnisceient being, knew of these atrocities.
  
• A word from Jesus would have stopped these atrocities.
  
• Jesus is capable of sending such a communique to either the religious leaders and/or their minions.
  
• Jesus chose to do nothing to stop them.
  

As the prosecuting attorney, I will argue that the lack of a direct order to commit said atrocities does not absolve Jesus. He had both the knowledge and the ability to stop his followers from getting out of hand and chose not to. At best, this would be criminal negligence and, at worst, complicity by silence.

I have argued before that if Jesus is who Christians say he is, than he is the least fit being in all the universe to stand in judgment over anyway and, on Judgment Day, he should beg our forgiveness, not the other way around.

If you're interpreting Jesus' teachings as saying to go out and commit atrocities, you are not following Jesus because he never said that.

Did Jesus tell us about Hell? And what awaits us there? And the only way to escape it?