The following are my comments posted on this article: 'Islamophobia' and the Atheist movement | The Raw Story.
I'm posting only one side, my side. You may click the links to see them and the comments to which they respond.
"...christianity, and all belief systems that give people an excuse to commit atrocities...." Jesus gives people an excuse to commit atrocities? Which specific teaching(s) of Jesus does that? Please quote him saying anything that does that. If you can't do it (and you can't because he did no such thing), it would be wise to humbly retract your statement and apologize openly here. Also, don't make the common error of claiming Christianity is other than Jesus's message. Anything that deviates from Jesus's message is not Christianity.
Others reacted to his words of truth by not following them but rather pursuing militancy. The Zealots are the prime case in point. Jesus warned them. They refused to heed. The Romans crushed Jerusalem, as Jesus had prophesied. Jesus knew what his words would do – how people would foolishly ignore them. That's what is meant by "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division."
Division, separation: You are mistaken that it meant he came to encourage human-on-human violence. He also said, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
Reconcile yourself to his full message, not just bits that are convenient to your hatred of the implications of his words.
Jesus's message is Christianity. Anything not in sync with his message is not Christianity. If nothing has ever been in sync with Jesus's message, then nothing has ever been Christian or Christianity.
John Hagee, who is calling for making war on Iran, is not a Christian even though he claims to be. Can you not understand that?
Just mouthing that one is Christian doesn't make it so.
Resorting to violence is not Christian. Anyone who is resorting to violence against fellow humans is being anti-Christ. At the same time, there are such things as sincere repentance and true mercy and forgiveness.
I'm "a pathetic fool" in your eyes not for the reason you think but because I don't stop short in reading Jesus, as you do.
Death of the flesh is something in which you believe, isn't it? Yes. The judgment is a separation of righteousness from evil, or righteousness from death. Death of the soul is that separation. You though want to read Jesus literally even when he made clear that he taught in parables so that those who can't hear his voice won't. You don't hear him. That's very clear.
Jesus is the real bread from Heaven. What does that mean to you? You are offended by the term "bread" there because you want your cake and to eat it too. You want swords and death to mean only what serves your desires and not the highest sense of righteousness conceivable: God, as Jesus defines God in the Good News.
Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say to anyone to use violence on any other human being. His parables are over your head because your heart is too hardened against his message. You don't want to live in accordance with his teachings because doing so would mean stopping doing something wrong that you want to continue doing. What is that thing or are those things?
If your literal reading were correct, then Jesus would be for mammon, usury, taxes, etc., when he clearly was and is not.
You give up before you even attempt to work things out. You can't instantly reconcile what you've read or heard about Jesus, so you quit in disgust and blame him. That's a huge error on your part.
If someone kills someone else in your name, are you automatically guilty?
America is killing all the time. I am an American. I am not killing. I can say that those Americans who bomb wedding parties in Afghanistan are doing wickedness. I can even apologize to them in the name of America. Would I be speaking for the whole of America or only some Americans?
If I say that people who call themselves Christians who slaughter others are wrong and are not being Christian, would I be speaking truth? It is what I say, and I say it's truth.
You want to insist that anti-Christs are Christians simply because they say they are regardless of what they do. That's a dishonest approach in my book. It is misled and misleading.
Why don't you just be honest and call those who are killing people in the name of Christ what they are: anti-Christs?
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:3-12)
That's why it is the New Testament. Moses taught Old Testament law because the people's hearts were too hard for Jesus's law. That's how it was and is. If you can't accept Jesus's teachings, that's shows the condition of your heart: too hard.
By the way, Moses's teachings were still a huge step up from what had been going on. You have the benefit of hindsight. Don't be arrogant. Afterall, you still can't read Jesus and understand him.
That thinking is darkness. It is allowing non-Christians to falsely define Christianity, to twist it.
Jesus defines Christianity. Anti-Christ, anti-Jesus, is anti-Christianity.
No amount of people in the US military claiming to be Christians while they kill people can alter it. They are not being Christians.
Nothing you can say can change it either.
If what you claim were true, he would have stoned the adulteress.
Even little kindergartners in Sunday school know that Jesus was opposed to an eye for an eye.
A world of horror has been built upon all sorts of things, including atheism. In Jesus's case, the world of horror has only been built upon twisting or selectively ignoring his teachings.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, it's history is full of mistakes. Their current Pope knows it and is, so far, acting accordingly more than any Pope before him.
I have stated repeatedly that defining Christianity by what is anti-Christ is an error. You are still doing that.
If you truly want truth, start by instructing all others that Jesus's teachings define authentic Christianity and that those things that run contrary to his teachings are not true Christianity.
You can do that whether or not you are a Christian, although I say that you should join Jesus if you are able. Many are called. Few are chosen/able.
You completely misunderstand what Jesus meant by saying: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." At the same time, he taught: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." You err by reading one without the other. You err by not reconciling them to each other.
How could he also say that "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" while also not loving them?
Tell me. What is it about one's family members and oneself that one must rightly hate before entering heaven? When you can do that, then you will understand.
No. By my definition, the right definition, there is, and always has been, only one Christianity, one religion. You are referring to groups that weren't fitting that.
In addition, there have been many people who have called themselves Christian who refused to wage war and refused as a group. A great deal of the Radical Reformation is based upon it. Many Peace Church (a redundancy) members were martyred for refusing to commit acts of violence upon their fellow humans.
Please remember them rather than speaking as if they never existed.
Peace to you.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:4-12)
Your comprehension is nonexistent concerning these passages. They reconcile with each other.
You are in the dark about those who were in the dark before you and how Jesus enlightened many of them. They received it. You don't trouble yourself to think. You just give up because you don't understand. You want instant gratification justifying your shallowness.
You are not better than Jesus Christ was or is. You are not wiser or smarter or more righteous but less so.
Your ego is in your own way, and you become upset because of your own confusion.
Try thinking more before you condemn Jesus. You sound a great deal like those who crucified him.
He didn't teach his followers to do animal sacrifices.
I'm confident that you don't like him because he calls upon people not to do the evil you want to do. You don't like him because your conscience is bothering you.
Anyway, I've related enough to you. If you continue on the path you've been on, you'll grow harder and harder heading right for Hell. It is amazing that you claim Jesus tricks people into Hell when he tells exactly how to avoid going there. You don't listen though. You're too busy being misled and misleading others.
You are hard. Try softening up.
You do likewise. Nevertheless, my definition is correct.
If a righteous leader says "follow" and people drift off knowing they are not following, it is not the leader's fault but those who knowingly go astray out from under the authority. You are such a one.
Jesus doesn't force others to follow him. Military commanders down through the ages, however, murdered many people who refused to fight for the worldly elitists. That's your obedience.
You've heard Jesus, but have chosen not to follow.
Nevertheless, Jesus came looking for those who could hear him but were led astray by people such as you. He gave his flesh to do it. It is much more then you've done for humanity.
You can't hold a candle to him. You do not shine brighter than he does, not even close. No one you know shines brighter than he does.
Constantine tricked those who were easily led astray out from under Jesus. You hold Jesus responsible for that. That shows what kind of person you are. You would have it that Jesus force them while here you are complaining about people forcing each other.
You are not thoughtful toward Jesus at all. It's a shame.
The logical conclusion of your position is that you want to live in a world where everyone is accepted no matter what he or she does or believes. That world of yours is fine on one condition only. Everyone must behave in a way that is acceptable to everyone else. You won't get there short of everyone agreeing, believing the same. That's the point.
The Heaven of Jesus Christ is a place where everyone agrees that the righteousness expounded upon and exemplified by Jesus is how the members should, will, and do believe and behave. Everything else is less than that righteousness.
You choose to go with the most deliberately lawless, iniquitous, unrepentant, conscienceless souls -- souls that refuse to let go of the very essence of evil no matter how much any other being shows them the folly of that choice that leads to utter slavery and pain and suffering under the worst evil. Claiming you don't would be inconsistent with your statement: "I have no desire to belong to a community or an organization where someone is an outcast because they won't behave and believe the way they're told to." It's inescapable for you.
You must choose some rules of behavior other than that the rule is that there are no rules, or you will exist in the deepest depths of Hell, which is bottomless.
I don't want to see anyone there. I should hope you don't either.
"There is no reconciliation." You make an emphatic declaration rather than asking about how they are reconciled. Your mind, heart, and soul are closed.
Some atheists can and have discussed, considered, and even admitted that their knowledge can't allow them to rule out that Jesus is as represented in the canonical Gospels. It is possible to carry on at least a somewhat intelligent conversation with them.
The Christian Bible contains both Old and New Testaments. Those Testaments are not one and the same, obviously. They are different. The differences matter. Jesus was not and is not the Moses of the Old Testament.
Moses did not deal with the same generations of people Jesus dealt with. It matters. The current generations are not the same as either of those times. That matters too.
The Bible is an unfolding. Everything revealed by Jesus was not revealed in the Old Testament as he revealed it in the New.
You are completely incorrect that I, as a Christian, must live under Mosaic law, all the rituals, the punishments, etc.
What you don't understand, what you haven't wanted to bring yourself to admit, is that Jesus did fulfill. What he did on the Cross was climatic. The future is set that he has won. You can't change it. All of your attacks upon his name can't touch it. You can only harm yourself and those who will fall for your errors. Your heart is simply too hardened to recognize it.
You fear allowing yourself to soften.
You have not reached the point where you care enough to look into why you are so messed up. You have not reached the point where you are sorry enough about all the wickedness you've done (and done not even ostensibly in the name of God or Jesus Christ but done fully wittingly of your own accord, though I grant that you are possessed of a dark spirit). Yes, I do believe in spirit; and neither can you prove there is no such thing.
The spirit will be revealed again.
You trust evil. I trust Jesus who is not wicked at all and who did not lead anyone into wickedness.
You do not read his words correctly. That's your downfall. Try again. Are you beyond redemption? Are you beyond salvation from evil and confusion?
And you completely ignored the logical conclusion of your own stated position. I don't want to be around people who do what you just did. I like honesty, not ducking the clear and plain facts about one's openly stated views.
My subject was and remains the teachings of Jesus. You, in your false-heartedness, attempt to lump Jesus's teachings in with those that he never espoused.
Don't worry, you won't be in Heaven if you don't want to be; and it will be fine with me when I find myself there without you there while you don't want to be there.
It's the whole point of the great separation that will occur. Righteousness will finally be free of evil -- evil such as the evil you are spewing here against righteousness.
You call me self-righteous while you spew your own version. You haven't the faintest idea of how hypocritical you've been throughout this entire discussion thread.
It would be wonderful were you to open your eyes and see, but I won't go down if you don't. We are not one. I am not inextricably bound to your refusal to read and to understand Jesus.
He was and remains the one to follow. He taught the best behavior anyone has ever taught. You can't see it. You don't hear his voice. You are not of his fold. You will not be shepherded into Heaven. You will go somewhere else because that's what you want (you convince yourself).
After your jazz band gets done entertaining the devils in Hell, it will eat you, just as evil is devouring your soul now. The band members won't care that you're screaming for mercy.
You go there. I'll pass. I've had enough of misled, false liberty.
Irving Berlin didn't address my refutation of your comments. That's how you handle thinking about such matters. When you have no answer, you quote an Irving Berlin song that also doesn't supply an honest answer.
I'm sure Irving Berlin regrets his choices and that song; but, there's the devil to pay. Satan charges his followers. The price is bondage and torture. What's more, you know it and are twisted up about it.
No, I don't realize that because it is not true that I have been angry. You're simply reading anger into my replies or at least saying you see anger to plant false seeds in the minds of others or in attempt to solicit anger on my part.
All you are really doing is reflecting you back to you but not seeing it.
I'm not angry. I haven't become at all angry and am not going to. In fact, I'm quite relaxed and have been the whole time.
Anyway, it is completely clear that you were never interested in seeking truth and discussing things in an honest fashion.
I'll leave off here with you. There's no point in trying to discuss any of this any further with you. I'll wait to come across people who are genuine though I'm glad the darkside here (you and those who agree with you) was confronted. I'll just not drag it out.
I've written enough here that those who truly care about honesty (truth) can benefit. If no one here benefits, I'll still have done the right thing but shake the dust from my feet, as my brother, Jesus, did before me and other spiritual brothers and sisters will do after me.
As for Irving Berlin and intolerance, the idea that he ran away to escape people being Christlike to each other is asinine. Coming from you though, that idea is consistent and wrong. That's you: consistently wrong.
Nevertheless, may God bless you with the truth if you will, are capable of, accepting it: your problem, not his.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)