No True Scotsman

[Tonus]

What I'm saying is that if a christian commits an atrocity, even though he's a true christian, if he's is acting counter to the teachings of Jesus, then you can't blame christianity for the act. The person is acting on his own accord, not according to the teachings of Christ.

Putting aside the notion that "according to the teachings of Christ" is open to interpretation, that is an awfully convenient approach to take. It sounds to me that you are saying that if Christians do terrible things, that shouldn't reflect badly on Christianity. Is that really your point of view, that we cannot judge an organization by the way its members behave?

[Minimalist]

Slavery in Jesus' society was a different institution than in America.

That must be why there were 3 slave revolts in the 60 years between 132 and 71 BC? Slavery was such a lark!

[Lek]

Slavery in Jesus' society was a different institution than in America. They were usually prisoners of war or voluntary slaves. Jesus' concern was that they be treated righteously.

See, now this is interesting: after defining a christian as one who follows Christ, you turn around and demonstrate that you apparently don't, because Christ wasn't a fan of lying.

I'm pretty amazed nobody picked you up on this before now, but what you just claimed is bullshit; the rules for slavery, the biblical commandments about it that Jesus never repealed but reinforced, say that slaves can be bought "from the heathens around you." That says nothing about prisoners of war, or voluntary slavery, it just says to go to other places that have slavers and by from them.

It also says later that the wife and children of a slave belong to the slave's master, which doesn't take into account their consent at all, and in fact kids cant give consent to that anyway. We then proceed to be given a loophole wherein we can enslave a temporary slave forever by entrapment, giving him a wife and kids so that his emotional attachments override his desire to be free and he stays. These people aren't prisoners of war or volunteers, they're fucking slaves.

And as for being treated "righteously," the New Testament tells slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones. All masters, everywhere, and this is added to another old commandment that you seem to ignore that was never repealed, which says we're allowed to beat our slaves to death, so long as they linger for a couple of days between beating and expiring.

So... what? Did you just lie to us? Or do you not know your own bible as well as Esquilax the atheist does? Either way, doesn't that mean you aren't following Christ, and are therefore not a christian by your own definition?

As has been said before, we're not under the old Jewish law. Those laws were given to people under God's wrath. After the sacrifice of Christ we are now live under God's grace because he paid the penalty for sin. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and that nothing would disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. After his life, death and resurrection the fulfillment was accomplished.

---

Slavery in Jesus' society was a different institution than in America.

That must be why there were 3 slave revolts in the 60 years between 132 and 71 BC? Slavery was such a lark!

I didn't say slavery was a lark. But if slaves were being treated badly, it was being done counter to Christ's teaching.

[Chad32]

I don't really care if they were old Jewish laws that were passed on to people Yahweh was mad at. It's the first impression we get of this god, and he makes no apologies about it afterwards. The old testament takes up two thirds of the bible, and I would assume is normally read first unless a person is told to start with Matthew. So I don't think we'll just ignore the majority of the book where the god is telling his followers to slaughter their enemies instead of loving them, and details various atrocities that Jesus doesn't apologize for, or really make much effort to ensure that it isn't done anymore.

Just because your god got nicer at some point doesn't absolve him of the things he did in the past.

[Lek]

What I'm saying is that if a christian commits an atrocity, even though he's a true christian, if he's is acting counter to the teachings of Jesus, then you can't blame christianity for the act. The person is acting on his own accord, not according to the teachings of Christ.

Putting aside the notion that "according to the teachings of Christ" is open to interpretation, that is an awfully convenient approach to take. It sounds to me that you are saying that if Christians do terrible things, that shouldn't reflect badly on Christianity. Is that really your point of view, that we cannot judge an organization by the way its members behave?

It does reflect badly on Christianity, but it doesn't invalidate the teachings of Christ or show that Christianity is evil and detrimental to the world or a cause of atrocities.

[ShaMan]

But if slaves were being treated badly, it was being done counter to Christ's teaching.

WRONG!
1 Peter 2:18

New International Version

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

So, was Peter a True Christian™?

Hehehe... I posted this following Lek's 666th post

[Chad32]

Putting aside the notion that "according to the teachings of Christ" is open to interpretation, that is an awfully convenient approach to take. It sounds to me that you are saying that if Christians do terrible things, that shouldn't reflect badly on Christianity. Is that really your point of view, that we cannot judge an organization by the way its members behave?

It does reflect badly on Christianity, but it doesn't invalidate the teachings of Christ or show that Christianity is evil and detrimental to the world or a cause of atrocities.

Is there anything christianity has done for the world that can't be done by any other group? Aside from "saving" your "soul" from "hell". None of which have been proven to exist.

[Cato]

As has been said before, we're not under the old Jewish law. Those laws were given to people under God's wrath. After the sacrifice of Christ we are now live under God's grace because he paid the penalty for sin. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and that nothing would disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. After his life, death and resurrection the fulfillment was accomplished.

The Gospels say the exact opposite, particularly the words attributed to Jesus. Only later when Paul was having trouble meeting his membership drive quota did he have to change his approach to attract Gentiles. The fulfillment didn't mean that the laws didn't apply. Christ's fulfillment of the law was simply a purported example of full compliance. It's the Pauline Christian that doesn't want the burden of living as Christ instructed so they contrive this deception in order to obtain a free ride.

It really is all nonsense.

[Lek]

I don't really care if they were old Jewish laws that were passed on to people Yahweh was mad at. It's the first impression we get of this god, and he makes no apologies about it afterwards. The old testament takes up two thirds of the bible, and I would assume is normally read first unless a person is told to start with Matthew. So I don't think we'll just ignore the majority of the book where the god is telling his followers to slaughter their enemies instead of loving them, and details various atrocities that Jesus doesn't apologize for, or really make much effort to ensure that it isn't done anymore.

Just because your god got nicer at some point doesn't absolve him of the things he did in the past.

We don't ignore the old testament at all. It shows the creation and the fall of mankind and the consequences suffered as a result. It also shows how God carried out his plan to send us the messiah and save us from our plight. It's the story of a people awaiting the messiah, which is fulfilled in the new testament.

---

As has been said before, we're not under the old Jewish law. Those laws were given to people under God's wrath. After the sacrifice of Christ we are now live under God's grace because he paid the penalty for sin. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and that nothing would disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. After his life, death and resurrection the fulfillment was accomplished.

The Gospels say the exact opposite, particularly the words attributed to Jesus. Only later when Paul was having trouble meeting his membership drive quota did he have to change his approach to attract Gentiles. The fulfillment didn't mean that the laws didn't apply. Christ's fulfillment of the law was simply a purported example of full compliance. It's the Pauline Christian that doesn't want the burden of living as Christ instructed so they contrive this deception in order to obtain a free ride.

It really is all nonsense.

Give me some examples so I can respond.

[Cato]

It does reflect badly on Christianity, but it doesn't invalidate the teachings of Christ or show that Christianity is evil and detrimental to the world or a cause of atrocities.

You don't think it's evil to instruct people to forego medical attention when needed in favor of prayer?