That Christian compassion

RichieC

swiped this from another forum I'm on.. crazy stuff..
A 16 year old girl who won a legal battle to have a prayer banner removed from her public school has been the target of abuse and threats from Christian students and community members..

Get this! Rep Peter G. Palumbo (D RI) Called her an "Evil little thing"... a sixteen year old girl standing up for the constitution of the US..

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/that-christian-compassion/

Make you sick they would.

swiftblade

The US in terms of religious tolerance (or lack of) will always be worse than Ireland, which in itself says a lot...

RichieC

Update to the story, people are trying to send the girl flowers from around the US but the three local Florists are refusing service for her address...

http://630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2375942&spid=37719

One store, Twins Florist, said they could not do the delivery because the owner feared for the driver’s safety.

[-0-]

I'd love to hear what Hitchens would say about this.

strobe

[-0-] wrote: »

I'd love to hear what Hitchens would say about this.

Brains...

philologos

It seems a little bit silly that people would take a lawsuit to take that down. Even still, she was treated horribly and I could never advocate that.

fisgon

This, of course, is absolute par for the course, for the religious throughout history. Any challenge to their dominance is met with violence, threats of violence, intimidation, lies, ignorance. It's this story that lets Christianity show its true face, that is under all the hypocritical nonsense about caring and compassion.

philologos

The question is whether or not that is really the true face of Christianity as Jesus intended it?

MagicMarker

No true scotsman in 8 posts, is that a record?

philologos

If behaviour is not consistent with Jesus' teaching, what is Christian about that behaviour? Valid point I'm afraid.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

If behaviour is not consistent with Jesus' teaching, what is Christian about that behaviour?

Matthew 10:34-38

Matthew wrote:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Luke 12:49-53:

Luke wrote:

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

I'd have said it was perfectly consistent with Jesus' wishes and expectations.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

It seems a little bit silly that people would take a lawsuit to take that down. Even still, she was treated horribly and I could never advocate that.

Under the American constitution, public schools are supposed to respect the seperation of church and state. She has more right to be offended by it than the people attackeing her her request.

fitz0

robindch wrote: »

Matthew 10:34-38Luke 12:49-53:I'd have said it was perfectly consistent with Jesus' wishes and expectations.

Clearly those are just metaphors. You're just twisting it. You don't understand it. Jesus meant something different by it.

Ok now that we have that out of the way, those people are being Christians defending their faith. Its generally done in a nasty way in response to attempts to take them from their place of privilege. They might not be nasty people but religion certainly brings it out in them here.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

It seems a little bit silly that people would take a lawsuit to take that down. Even still, she was treated horribly and I could never advocate that.

The facts of the matter are, it's a public school and showing favouritism to one religion over an other is unconstitutional, The judge agreed in his ruling. Now, they could stick up some Jewish signs and some Muslim signs, do you think these lovely people would allow that?

not a chance.

joseph brand

RichieC wrote: »

swiped this from another forum I'm on.. crazy stuff..
A 16 year old girl who won a legal battle to have a prayer banner removed from her public school has been the target of abuse and threats from Christian students and community members..

Get this! Rep Peter G. Palumbo (D RI) Called her an "Evil little thing"... a sixteen year old girl standing up for the constitution of the US..

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/that-christian-compassion/

Make you sick they would.

Comment stolen from that site:

What on earth is happening to the US? The response to this sounds more like what one might expect in Pakistan, rather than the country that would like to consider itself the moral compass of the planet. I’m in Ireland & used to think that we were priest-ridden (unfortunately in multiple ways), but the US has descended into a morass of Perry/Bachman/Palin religion-motivated bigotry and intolerance. This case has unfortunate similarities to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, except the target this time is a 16-year-old kid!

The love coming from those Christians. Don't they say that without God, people would end up with no morals? Heh. . . . .

[-0-]

Religious makes normal people do crazy things.

Ellis Dee

"Christian compassion" must be close to being the ultimate oxymoron. Just look at the crimes that have been committed, the tortures and cruelty inflicted in the name of that religion. Not, of course, that Christianity is unique in that respect. In fact, it isn't really unique in any respect, because many of the ideas that its supporters trumpet, many of the noble ideals, were formulated, espoused and practised in much earlier cultures and philosophies, such as those in India and Persia, thousands of years before Christianity grew out of Judaism and eclectically borrowed elements to use in its sales portfolio.:rolleyes:

The mentality that gave us the Inquisition and so many other horror stories and people with the mindset needed for such ugliness have not gone away, you know.:D

RichieC

This would all be on the front of the European papers if it was a young Christian child having managed to have Islamic stuff removed from the school and then faced terror from the local Muslims. The double standards on this planet make me fuc*ing sick.

Christians would be trumpeting the old line "herd derp religion of peace"

philologos

philologos wrote: »

If behaviour is not consistent with Jesus' teaching, what is Christian about that behaviour? Valid point I'm afraid.

So if they are not Christian, why are they offended in the first place?

robindch

^^^ Indestructible logic.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So if they are not Christian, why are they offended in the first place?

I never said that they weren't Christian. I'm surprised that you and the large cohort of people who thanked that post didn't realise this.

What I did say is that the behaviours are not Christian if they are not in line with the Gospel.

Hardly indestructible logic. Next thing is the passage from Matthew 10 and the passage in Luke 12 which robindch used. Again, this was written concerning persecution that Christians would receive at the hands of those who disagreed with them. It wasn't a passage that condoned Christians doing things which Jesus clearly didn't advocate. See 1 Peter if you want essentially a manifesto for how Christian people should strive to live in the world. Lazy quotation from Scripture isn't particularly clever or useful in this discussion.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I never said that they weren't Christian. I'm surprised that you and the large cohort of people who thanked that post didn't realise this.

What I did say is that the behaviours are not Christian if they are not in line with the Gospel.

And what's your point exactly?
They are Christian, but they are all also hateful vile bigots. You are attempting the no true scotsman fallacy to avoid the point.

If they are not following the Gospel as you claim, why then are they getting so worked up?

Though I'm more than sure some of them feel that they are behaving exactly like the gospel says they should.
So what (other than a desire to avoid the point) leads you to believe that they aren't "true Christians"?

ShooterSF

The gospels are not black and white. They require studying and interpretations based on context and other issues. At least I've been told that. Are the WBC christian? They certainly quote scripture, but their interpretation of it differs from others' I'm sure.

Where are the leaders of Cranston's churches here anyway? If their members are misguided and doing wrong why are they not out in the media publicly condemning their actions? I haven't found one quote from a church leader on an issue where it appears a large part of their flock are acting "unchristian".

Oh and one other point, this is not a "crazy americans" situation either. We've had 2 threads on boards that I remember with some vitriol spewed from other seemingly "non christians"; one to do with a statue at a hospital I think and one a religious picture in a social welfare office.

philologos

My point was by treating someone in that way they are disobeying the principles that they claim to follow. That's rather simple, it's not even the No True Scotsman fallacy, it just involves looking at the Gospels and doing a simple comparison.

It's a fair question to ask that much given a previous post:

This, of course, is absolute par for the course, for the religious throughout history. Any challenge to their dominance is met with violence, threats of violence, intimidation, lies, ignorance. It's this story that lets Christianity show its true face, that is under all the hypocritical nonsense about caring and compassion.

I don't believe any of that, or this is "the true face of Christianity", certainly not as is based in the Gospels.

ShooterSF: In both cases as far as I can tell they were also challenged by other Christians to be fair.

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe any of that, or this is "the true face of Christianity", certainly not as is based in the Gospels.

While you are indeed free to believe whatever you wish, and I truly hope nobody ever has the power to take that freedom away from you, one can only judge 'the true face of christianity' by the face the religion as an organisation and a political power presents to the world.

It's a pretty ugly face.

The face of 'a christian' generally looks like any other face; friendliness, smiles, etc.

But the face of 'Christianity' is generally contorted in rage, and it snarls.

philologos

^^ Not necessarily. One can judge what Christianity truly advocates from Jesus' example, then one can compare what certain organisations seem to be doing in practice. I think that's quite a fair way to look at this.

Also, I don't believe that people can't and don't genuinely live for Jesus in the world. I guess it depends on how you choose your test sample. Using tiny minorities, or genuinely looking into the full nature of Christianity. Indeed, I could do the same in respect to new-atheism.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

^^ Not necessarily. One can judge what Christianity truly advocates from Jesus' example, then one can compare what certain organisations seem to be doing in practice. I think that's quite a fair way to look at this.

Also, I don't believe that people can't and don't genuinely live for Jesus in the world. I guess it depends on how you choose your test sample. Using tiny minorities, or genuinely looking into the full nature of Christianity. Indeed, I could do the same in respect to new-atheism.

You mean like people (mostly Christians funnily enough) do with Islam?
Basing the actions of a few and claiming it's the whole.

Honestly, if I ever want advice on how to treat people, among the last I'll speak to will be Christian or of virtually any religion, because you're all hypocrites.

philologos

I agree that would be fair to a certain degree. In the case of the Christian, I would analyse it based on how Biblical something is. I don't advocate mistreatment of any individual on account of the Christian message, because that would contradict the Christian message itself. I can explain why Biblically that it is wrong that people said such things about that girl. Christians are obliged to treat unbelievers with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) and perhaps we all need to work on that.

I don't particularly trust man for what I am to do, simply put all I aim to do as a Christian is emulate Jesus. I strive to do this better and better on a daily basis. Sometimes I mess up, but I pick myself up and try again. I want to honour God in every single thing that I do, and I've found that that has generally worked for the better.

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

In the case of the Christian, I would analyse it based on how Biblical something is.

In response I'll just leave this here...

Galvasean wrote: »

CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

...and stroll away like a litter-bug leaving a lit cigarette in a national park.

philologos

^^ Leave the video there if you want. It's a basic fact that context is an important tool when reading any text. I could have written an essay on Plato's Republic isolating one line of let's say Socrates dialogue with Thrasymachus in book 1 without considering anything else about that dialogue or perhaps not having read anything else in that dialogue at all. As a result I could have missed the entire point of that entire discussion that they had and have misunderstood it entirely.

It's obvious to anyone who reads that if you isolate a sentence without consideration of the chapter or indeed the book to which it belongs that horrendous misunderstanding will begin.

That's my problem with new-atheist critiques when many Christians accuse them of taking Biblical passages out of context. That's no different to how I would advocate anyone reading any philosophical text, or any text at all for that matter. I think if a passage is raised, people have the right to analyse the whole chapter of where it fits in, or even its place in the entire Bible as this is what any good literary critic would do.

What's so remarkable about that? It seems like a bit of common sense to me?

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

isolating one line of let's say Socrates dialogue with Thrasymachus in book 1

Let's take one of Thrasymachus' lines then:

Thrasymachus wrote:

I must have clearness and accuracy

Seems ok to me...

philologos

What's your point? - My point is that I don't have a clue of the general point of Thrasymachus' argument in Plato's Republic book 1 without reading the whole dialogue.

Likewise, if you take a single line from the Bible without any consideration of its context it's much the same. It serves no productive purpose.

That's a valid argument. I do this in respect to reading any text, it's not a special case for the Bible. Complaining about the general principle of reading things in context in my opinion is essentially shooting yourself in the foot because any reasonable person would read any book with consideration of context.

Sonics2k

Does it not bother you so much that one little book can be interpreted in thousands of ways, context is distorted with time, and even the leaders of the various churches change the rules every few years.

Surely if God (any god) really wanted people to get along, he wouldn't send out cryptic messages causing thousands of years of wars, hatred, bigotry and violence.

With so many hundreds of variations of just Christianity alone, how can you ever be sure that you've chosen the right one, if you did even choose it willingly and simply weren't raised and made to believe it from a young age. What if the leaders of your faith suddenly did a u-turn on something you don't approve of, for example, this case in the U.S.

And don't you dare say it's free will, because it's not.

It irks me when people say 'This is not Christian compassion', because what it is not 'Logical Compassion'. These people are raised in a belief system and it was challenged, so they resorted to is base hatred, which is being back up by an entire community of people including Religious leaders.

philologos

It doesn't bother me because I don't believe many passages can be read in a number of ways. For the most part Jesus is quite clear in telling Christians what they should and should not do. For the most part, through reading and studying the Bible carefully with other Christians and in my own quiet time I can get a better idea of what God is saying to us today. Christians have a lot of resources to use in order to understand the Bible. Essentially it's one of the most open and accessible books in the world.

As for the "leaders of my faith". Jesus is the leader of Christianity. My church ministers / pastors are accountable to Him and His word. If they taught things which I found were patently unbiblical I'd leave and go elsewhere. Since my church for the most part uses expository preaching that is preaching line by line in a passage this is rarely a problem.

The core of the issue is - Jesus presented an example - what is Christian behaviour is entirely dependent on that example.

amacachi

Sonics2k wrote: »

Does it not bother you so much that one little book can be interpreted in thousands of ways

Why would it once his way is the right way? :pac:

Popinjay

philologos wrote:

What's your point?

It just seemed like a nice (in, or out, of context) one-liner that reflected an admirble sentiment I felt that your usual book was lacking.

philologos wrote: »

If they taught things which I found were patently unbiblical I'd leave and go elsewhere.

You didn't answer my questions on this...

Jesus wrote:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

... Over a year ago. Have you managed to reconcile it yet?

twinQuins

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't bother me because I don't believe many passages can be read in a number of ways.

But other people do and their interpretation is just as valid as yours (because Christianity lacks a single, recognised authority to espouse its doctrine). You are not the ultimate arbiter on what makes someone a Christian or whether or not their behaviour is Christian.

Your argument is therefore tautological - they're not acting like Christians. Why? Because you say so.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

My point was by treating someone in that way they are disobeying the principles that they claim to follow. That's rather simple, it's not even the No True Scotsman fallacy, it just involves looking at the Gospels and doing a simple comparison.
:

But it's the definition of the fallacy, you are saying that they aren't true Christians based on your personal interpretation of the bible.

You, in your usual intellectually dishonest way, avoided my questions in the post.
I asked you:
If they are not following the Gospel as you claim, why then are they getting so worked up?

Though I'm more than sure some of them feel that they are behaving exactly like the gospel says they should.
So what (other than a desire to avoid the point) leads you to believe that they aren't "true Christians"?

And will make the additional point that if you really wanted to, you can find much more to support their vile behaviour than you think (or will admit).

And I don't see how your interpretation of the bible (which you never elaborate on when backed into a corner) is any more valid than theirs.

Turtwig

This video also seems appropriate now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBDFe3mDtk

philologos

twinQuins wrote: »

But other people do and their interpretation is just as valid as yours (because Christianity lacks a single, recognised authority to espouse its doctrine). You are not the ultimate arbiter on what makes someone a Christian or whether or not their behaviour is Christian.

Your argument is therefore tautological - they're not acting like Christians. Why? Because you say so.

It's tautological only on the principle that you think it is impossible for Christians to read the Bible and agree with eachother. Yet, I've seen this on numerous occasions with Christians from different denominational backgrounds. I've seen this time and time again, and I continually see this time and time again on a weekly basis. I think there can be a huge amount of exaggeration of hermeneutical difficulties. In order to take that as seriously as you'd like me to, I just think I would need a good explanation of how the other 90ish% of the time Christians can understand the Bible when they read it together even from vastly different backgrounds.

It's clear that Jesus didn't encourage or advocate for Christians to hate non-Christians. In fact He encouraged the opposite, I can show you plenty of passages which substantiate that position. If it was that I lacked Biblical basis for my position, I'd understand you, since I don't it's difficult to. If I didn't have this basis, I wouldn't say that it was clear that it was not Christian behaviour. It's really that simple.

Essentially what I'm saying isn't that I'm right, but that God is right. I submit to Him.

Popinjay: I don't remember that far back or even the context of the discussion. I believe that the Law wasn't abolished, but it was fulfilled by Jesus. I believe that the Torah is still applicable in terms of its moral commands, but that it's ceremonial commands (such as animal sacrifice) were fulfilled by Jesus' saving death on the cross. Likewise, ceremonial commands such as dietary laws were fulfilled by Jesus (Mark 7). The moral law still stands, but its consequences differ in the light of Christ.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Essentially what I'm saying isn't that I'm right, but that God is right. I submit to Him.

Dear God please confirm what I already believe

philologos

Firstly, I don't see how that's applicable to my situation given that I wasn't a Christian up until about 5 years ago.

Secondly, I don't see how it is applicable given that I can clearly demonstrate Biblically that hating non-Christians isn't acceptable under Christ.

Thirdly, this quote confuses me.

Volunteers' own beliefs corresponded most strongly with those they attributed to God.

Surely, if someone believes in God, their beliefs should correspond strongly with what He advocates.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

It's clear that Jesus didn't encourage or advocate for Christians to hate non-Christians. In fact He encouraged the opposite, I can show you plenty of passages which substantiate that position. If it was that I lacked Biblical basis for my position, I'd understand you, since I don't it's difficult to. If I didn't have this basis, I wouldn't say that it was clear that it was not Christian behaviour. It's really that simple.

Essentially what I'm saying isn't that I'm right, but that God is right. I submit to Him.

And I'm sure that these people either can quote just as many (and probably the same) passages that supports their behaviour or they justify it in other ways, for example "Well jesus was talking about people who believed in *something* not atheists."

And you are still using the no true scotsman fallacy.
And you can't show that you particular interpretation is more valid than there's let alone that theirs is wrong while yours is right.

philologos

King Mob: Again, I think people overplay hermeneutical issues, because generally from experience I find that most Christians even if they are from vastly different denominations can agree with each other on Scripture in the vast majority of occasions. Even if I did regard that girl as my enemy, Jesus explicitly says in Matthew chapter 5 that we should pray for those who persecute us. Things really don't get much clearer than this:

Matthew 5:43-48 wrote:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

That's clear to pretty much anyone who can read. I feel it's a cop out to claim that nobody can agree on the meaning of Scripture. That's clearly not true from what I can tell.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: Again, I think people overplay hermeneutical issues, because generally from experience I find that most Christians even if they are from vastly different denominations can agree with each other on Scripture in the vast majority of occasions. Even if I did regard that girl as my enemy, Jesus explicitly says in Matthew chapter 5 that we should pray for those who persecute us. Things really don't get much clearer than this:

That's clear to pretty much anyone who can read.

So then if this is the case, why do these people act like that?

If they don't care about what you say the bible says (ignoring the fact that it can be taken in any way you'd like.) why are they getting so worked up in the first place?

Why is your interpretation more valid than others?

And speaking of Matthew there's a lovely little story later on in it that contradicts your opinion of what the above passage says.

And I'm not saying that no one can agree on scripture, that's a strawman.
I wonder if there's a part in the bible about being intellectually dishonest...

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So then if this is the case, why do these people act like that?

People do things which are wrong. People are fallible.

King Mob wrote: »

If they don't care about what you say the bible says (ignoring the fact that it can be taken in any way you'd like.) why are they getting so worked up in the first place?

I really don't see how that passage can be taken "any way you like". They are getting worked up because they are offended at the idea that people don't believe in God, but they are acting precisely contrary to the way that Jesus encouraged people to deal with both anger, and with those with whom we disagree.

King Mob wrote: »

Why is your interpretation more valid than others?

Again, I'm simply reading what's there.

King Mob wrote: »

And speaking of Matthew theres a lovely little story later one in it that contradicts your opinion of what the above passage says.

A story that encourages Christians to hate non-Christians?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

People do things which are wrong. People are fallible.

I really don't see how that passage can be taken "any way you like". They are getting worked up because they are offended at the idea that people don't believe in God, but they are acting precisely contrary to the way that Jesus encouraged people to deal with both anger, and with those with whom we disagree.

But why are they angry, they're not proper Christians and none of them have read the bible. So why do they care?

philologos wrote: »

Again, I'm simply reading what's there.

And a different person could read it differently or place less emphasis on it or find a different passage to add a rider to it, or have their own opinion such as that atheists didn't count in that one.
You know, pretty much everything you throw out when we point out the horrible passages in the bible.

philologos wrote: »

A story that encourages Christians to hate non-Christians?

Yes.
Matthew 15:22-28
It says how Jesus and his disciples refused to help a canaanite woman who was desperate to help her son, called her a dog and only helped after she renounced her culture, religion and heritage by humiliating herself.
Or at least, that how I can interpret it.

Course we could go back into the Old testament were less interpretation is needed to find such things...
Cause there's a great one about sicking bears on people who insult you...

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

Essentially what I'm saying isn't that I'm right, but that God is right. I submit to Him.

You and I are opposites, you submit to him, I make him tapout.

philologos

I didn't even attempt to say that they weren't proper Christians. It's possible for Christians to mess up, the thing that is important is that we should put things right. As far as I'm concerned other Christians have let them down if they haven't rebuked them for that kind of behaviour as Jesus encouraged us to (Matthew 18:15-20, Luke 17:3-4).

As for Matthew 15:22, Jesus is testing the woman's faith in that passage, which is pretty much why that section ends in:

Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Where do you get the notion that Jesus hates the woman from? - To claim that this is the way that Jesus generally spoke to Gentiles would be false given John 4 for example.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The question is whether or not that is really the true face of Christianity as Jesus intended it?

That isn't really the question.

There is no longer such a thing as the true face of Christianity as Jesus intended it, there hasn't been for about 1930 years. You don't follow Christianity as Jesus intended, these people don't follow Christianity as Jesus intended, no one does.

Jesus's teachings were of an apocalyptic cult, he was preparing his followers to abandon their families, abandon their possessions, abandon their lives and prepare themselves for the end times that were coming very soon, and thus would nullify the Earthly importance of these things.

Of course this didn't happen. And now we are left with "Christians" attempting to interpret these apocalyptic messages in the context of a way to live their lives centuries later with no sign of an apocalypse on the horizon.

So the real question is does the New Testament, applied today and applied in that context, produce harmony among people, does it increase tolerance and over all liberty and respect and well being.

And the answer is clearly no.

And this is not surprising because it is, again, a teaching designed for an audience facing the end times, an audience preparing to move on to judgement and the after life. It is supposed to bring division and separation and intolerance towards those who sin because it is for people who are suppose to believe they are about to be separated and judged and that the faith of their immortal soul depends on their actions right now. There is no time for tolerance, acceptance, harmony between sinners and saved, between blessed and damned.

Jesus (and Paul after him) expanded upon the Jewish notion that sinful acts corrupt not only the person committing the sin but those around them through temptation. And if judgement is just around the corner it makes perfect sense to expel that influence from you, your community, all those you care about who could become corrupted. Jesus (and more so Paul) introduced an urgency to this separation that is found throughout the New Testament.

This is completely unworkable in a society that stretches out over centuries attempting to apply these teachings, but then that is never what was intended for these teachings.

The end result is things like this.

If we define Christians as those who follow Jesus' teachings as he intended them to be followed, can we call these people Christians? Nope. But can we call any of you Christians? Nope.

Can Jesus himself be blamed for this? Not really, since I imagine he never thought his teachings would be applied in this manner, nor did he mean for them to be.

Can Christianity itself, as a movement that keeps these teachings alive and continues to incorrectly apply them to the world in this on going basis, be blames for this.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I didn't even attempt to say that they weren't proper Christians. It's possible for Christians to mess up, the thing that is important is that we should put things right. As far as I'm concerned other Christians have let them down if they haven't rebuked them for that kind of behaviour as Jesus encouraged us to (Matthew 18:15-20, Luke 17:3-4).

So they're proper Christians but they don't behave like christians or read the bible?
You post is contradictory and a lame attempt to avoid the fact you are using a fallacy to avoid the issue.

philologos wrote: »

As for Matthew 15:22, Jesus is testing the woman's faith in that passage, which is pretty much why that section ends in:

Where do you get the notion that Jesus hates the woman from? - To claim that this is the way that Jesus generally spoke to Gentiles would be false given John 4 for example.

Because he called her a dog and made her kneel and humiliate herself.
The apostles did the same.

And they only treated her like a person after she prostrated herself to Jesus.

Which I interpret as that it's fine to attack people to get them to join Christianity, justifying such behaviour.

Now again you've ignored points I made. Why?