No True Scotsman

[max-greece]

The real question is... Did Jesus not do all the horrible things his dad did simply because he lacked the time?

[Lek]

There's no way that Jesus' teachings can be interpreted as committing the atrocities that Christianity has been accused of. I don't care what denomination it is. I guess anybody could take anything and interpret it in a convoluted way.

Did you miss my point on purpose or by accident? What you just said, had nothing to do with what I just said. Read it again.

It seems that you were saying that since Jesus's teaching have been interpreted so many ways, there's no way to come to a conclusion as to which interpretation is correct. I was saying that, regardless of how many interpretations there are, none of them can be construed to mean that he wants us to murder, persecute or mistreat others.

---

Just where did Jesus say "people should not have sexual relations with people of the same sex" (book, chapter, and verse)?

I don't think Jesus said one word about homosexuality that was ever recorded in the Bible. I don't think you know your Bible at all.

The bible never quotes Jesus as saying that. But the teaching is affirmed by inspired new testament writers. Remember the quotes attributed to Jesus weren't written by Jesus. They were passed on from witnesses or, in Paul's case, a direct encounter with the risen Christ.

---

I will admit that Jesus didn't do as many horrible things as Yahweh did, unless you think those two are the same person, but even if Jesus is a different person he still worshiped Yahweh. Who is an obviously evil person to anyone who doesn't worship him.

The actions of Jesus kind of lose some of their credit when he unapologetically worships the guy from the old testament. Even if you ignore things like commanding people to put him above everyone else, anf giving away all possessions to follow him. Neither of which are very good ideas coming from a guy who died and disappeared a year or so after he started teaching things that have been taught by people before his time.

In eternity Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been one with the Father. Jesus had a part in everything done by the Father. God never committed and immoral act. I'm confident that many of the people effected by what you call atrocities are enjoying eternal joy as we debate this issue. God and christians view existence through the concept of eternity, whereas atheists view it through the concept that this earthly life is the only existence for us. Looking at from God's view, there was justice to be accomplished, but eventually a life of bliss. I think that even atheist will agree that people must often suffer to attain a reward or to serve justice. I know you'll vehemently disagree, but that's what the bible teaches and that's my point of view. If Jesus didn't love us, he wouldn't have agreed to die on the cross for us. John 10:17-18
World English Bible (WEB)
17 Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life,[a] that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.”

[fr0d0]

True dat

[Bad Wolf]

It seems that you were saying that since Jesus's teaching have been interpreted so many ways, there's no way to come to a conclusion as to which interpretation is correct. I was saying that, regardless of how many interpretations there are, none of them can be construed to mean that he wants us to murder, persecute or mistreat others.

You missed my point again. I said you are commiting the 'no true scotsman' fallacy because you claim that bad things aren't christian, meanwhile we have people like the Westboro bapstist church and the KKK going around doing awful things, yet to you they are not 'true christians'. My point was, you cannot tell who 'true christians' are. You have no way of knowing. And so whenever you claim that those bad christians aren't 'true christians' you are commiting the fallacy.

[ThomM]

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?

Actually - Hitler killed millions of Jews BECAUSE he believed they killed his savior - and that killing them WAS approved by his religion.

Having said that - It is common for believers to claim that Non-believers are immoral and unethical - just because they do not believe in the SPOOK of the day - and blame them for all manner of evil in the world as well.

And is just as much nonsense -

However - no one actually follows the teachings of the christ - he is a MYTH and the words in the bible are human fairy tales.

Now - read 1 Timothy 2 - and tell me you agree with what is taught about women in it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

No. You are using the no true scotsman fallacy when applied to a true christian. There is no consistent definition of a true christian. Even if we use a definition like: 'one who follows jesus teachings' there are 4000 different denominations of christianity with 4000 different views on what jesus teachings are. Which denomination is the true one? Is it yours? We have no way of knowing.

There's no way that Jesus' teachings can be interpreted as committing the atrocities that Christianity has been accused of. I don't care what denomination it is. I guess anybody could take anything and interpret it in a convoluted way.

---

Yes.

What theists view as moral tends to be highly immoral. Just because one attaches the concept of Jesus to an act does not automatically make that act moral.

When others suffer due to theistic acts in the name of god, then clearly the theist has a skewed comprehension of what it means to both be human and good.

---

Did Jesus teach that it was right to murder or mistreat people?

When Jesus returns he's going to rule the world as a theocratic dictator for a thousand years. People finally get tired of that and kick him to the curb. Then he returns again really ticked off and kills all life and destroys the Earth. He's not the best guy to use as a moral example.

[Tonus]

Did Jesus teach that it was right to murder or mistreat people?

If you believe that Jesus is Yahweh, then he did more than that; he specifically ordered his subjects to murder and mistreat people.

If you believe that Jesus is Yahweh's son, then the best you can say is that his father sent him to soften the message and he did a confusing job of it. On the one hand, he preached a much milder form of behavior than Yahweh did. On the other hand, he made it a crime to even think about some sins, threatening torment in hell for those who couldn't be as "perfect" as his father.

Why do Christians try to separate what god said and did in the old testament, as if it didn't happen? I can't find the new testament verses where Jesus or god indicate any remorse for what happened in the OT, or that god decided that maybe his earlier approach wasn't the best one.

[Bibliofagus]

Did Jesus teach that it was right to murder or mistreat people?

Yes. He even told mistreated slaves to just accept their mistreatment.

[Mudhammam]

True dat

I would consider this an example of Jesus' teaching of mistreatment towards humans. What are Christians forgiven from? Oh yes, their corrupted physical bodies and its "desires of the flesh." Christians continue to follow in Jesus' foot steps of psychologically mistreating themselves and others.

[fr0d0]

No, Christianity starts from the premise that human motives can be self destructive. It aims to free you from those so that you can live the most productive life possible.