Why do people hate Christianity?

[James Madison]

What I know is that men are fallible enough to use such a barbaric book as the bible as the rule of law. Slavery, witch burning, wife and children beating to name a few, are all justified in this immoral doctrine. Not to mention the demand of worshiping an eternal dictator that claims to be perfect but purposefully creates imperfection for his personal sick game known as earth.

Men are fallible. God is not. Show me once where Jesus defended 'witch burning' or 'wife and child beating'. Societies that have rejected God suffer from the same ills. Therefore, is this due to Christianity or human nature?

I've never met an Israel supporter that does not cite religion for their support. Ever.

Christians that support Israel do so because they have accepted the false doctrine of dispensationalism, an eschatology that was never taught in any circles until the 19th century.

Oh hey, let's talk about Calvin and Luther. Both were murderous, torturers to any and all that did not agree with their religious views. They burned heretics at the stake. They especially focused on scientists and philosophers. They were the most immoral men in their respective countries at the time. Mass murderers.

They were human and had human flaws. I could just as easily say the same of the French Revolution. Areligious buffoons running around killing anyone with an alternative worldview. Same with the Soviets. Or how about the Young Turks genociding Christians because of their religion?

Religion has ALWAYS had to be dragged kicking and screaming into scientific revolutions. They killed scientists until the public and reason would no longer allow it.

Except the most prolific scientists in human history were largely Christians. Isaac Newton wrote more on theology than he did on motion or gravity. Mendel was a monk during his work with the garden pea. I could go on and on.

 

[fr33]

Well, isn't it odd that a Muslim is reacting against a "Christian problem" of slavery that happened hundreds of years ago, but slavery still exists...today...in Muslim countries? To me, its just hypocritical.

The question posted in the OP was about Christianity so that's probably why they are posting about Christianity. The way you deflect criticism and assign it to islam is yet another example of tribal bigotry that religion inspires.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The question posted in the OP was about Christianity so that's probably why they are posting about Christianity. The way you deflect criticism and assign it to islam is yet another example of tribal bigotry that religion inspires.

I don't exactly know how the conversation got to slavery, but I can assure you that my differences with Islam are not "tribal".

My differences are theological in nature...and probably political too, since Islam itself is a statist political order. Christianity isn't a political order.

 

[VIDEODROME]

When I was a truck driver I would be awakened by Christians knocking on my door while I'm trying to rest. Or they crawl up on my semitruck to shove their pamphlets into the door. They would actually build these mini-chapels on truck stop parking lots and try to get people to attend(and donate I'm sure).

Their mere presence doesn't bother me but some are a little to aggressive in their evangelizing. Or somehow they spend all this time in a truck stop parking lot and are ignorant about how important it is for truckers to rest up.

I mean really one time I was in Knoxville looking for a place to park late at night on Saturday and left a truck stop just because I saw a chapel. I knew some dope would bang on my door in the morning and wake me up trying to get me into their Sunday morning mass.


To be a little fair, this is probably nice for Christian Truckers who are feeling lonely on the road and want a little sense of community support these chapels can provide. I just wish they wouldn't me so annoying by knocking on people's trucks or pestering people.

 

[Muwahid]

You make a good point, black chattel slavery was a huge problem...but it wasn't an exclusively Christian problem (it was a problem for the pagan black slave traders in Africa as well).

It wasn't a problem for Calvinist abolitionists like Samuel Adams, though. There were numbers of Christian abolitionists.

Chattel slavery is not the same thing as the slavery in first century Rome. That is the first incorrect assumption you are making.

The Bible doesnt specifically "outlaw" slavery right off the bat, because unlike Islam, Christianity is not a political order. Christianity speaks to all cultures in all situations. Islam is a man-made religion of works, whereas Christianity deals with the inside of a man, at the level of his soul.

But are the principles of manumussion in the Scripture? Yes.

Shouldn't it be strange to you that slavery only exists today in Islamic countries? That is the strangest thing to me.

Oh you!

There is no true Christian nation anymore (or Islamic for that matter), the nations which imposed Christianity as a state religion utterly failed and were oppressive. I know this is a tough point for you to defend, as it's clear Christianity justifies slavery, so what you've done is throw a red-herring, that is to bring up Islam, but my friend the title of the thread is why do people hate Christianity. I was under the impression that Christians followed Mosaic Law, we find many laws and punishments in Mosaic law for example the killing of the adulterer. If Jesus did not come to abolish the old law, why now do we pick and choose?

By the way I did not mean to infer that Christianity encouraged chattel slavery I meant to say it didn't oppose it, Islam does, very strongly in fact. I will be the first to say Muslims sinned when they became involved in the slave trade. The bottom line is, if the Church was still the power in the western world we very likely would have slavery and in fact going back to my original point about the founding generation, they were more than likely a bunch of Christian bigots even with the separation of Church and state.

I don't see how I'm being hypocritical when you make an asinine statement regarding the founding generation -- my point would be just as valid if I were not a Muslim.

p.s., lol if you truly think slavery only exists in "Islamic" countries today, that's rich.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I think some of the founders were pragmatic. I mean would America survive if they abolished slavery and kicked off a civil war right after the nation's founding?

Other founders like Washington himself were a product of the time. Maybe in his old age he reconsidered, but for much of his life he was a cold hearted bastard to his slaves.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Oh you!

There is no true Christian nation anymore (or Islamic for that matter), the nations which imposed Christianity as a state religion utterly failed and were oppressive. I know this is a tough point for you to defend, as it's clear Christianity justifies slavery, so what you've done is throw a red-herring, that is to bring up Islam, but my friend the title of the thread is why do people hate Christianity. I was under the impression that Christians followed Mosaic Law, we find many laws and punishments in Mosaic law for example the killing of the adulterer. If Jesus did not come to abolish the old law, why now do we pick and choose?

By the way I did not mean to infer that Christianity encouraged chattel slavery I meant to say it didn't oppose it, Islam does, very strongly in fact. I will be the first to say Muslims sinned when they became involved in the slave trade. The bottom line is, if the Church was still the power in the western world we very likely would have slavery and in fact going back to my original point about the founding generation, they were more than likely a bunch of Christian bigots even with the separation of Church and state.

I don't see how I'm being hypocritical when you make an asinine statement regarding the founding generation -- my point would be just as valid if I were not a Muslim.

p.s., lol if you truly think slavery only exists in "Islamic" countries today, that's rich.

Well, the conversation that came before the slavery conversation was that if Christians were "in control", they would "lock up scientists". My entire point was that in early Protestant (mostly Calvinistic) America, this was not the case. Calvinistic Protestantism in America was not like the tyranny of the Roman church-state, which was quite notorious for murder, tyranny, and locking up scientists of all kinds throughout the ages.

That was going to be my entire point...but then someone chimed in with the "oooh but what about slavery!"

In your post, I see that you still don't understand that first century Roman servitude was not the same as African chattel slavery. If you are going to equate the two, then you are already starting off with an incorrect premise.

Also, you totally brush over the fact that there were any number of Christian abolitionists in early America.

But, what is your response to the chattel slavery that is occuring TODAY in majority Muslim countries?Slavery alive and well in muslim countries, as one victim speaks out

What about the stoning of homosexuals that happens every day? What about the murder and religious oppression of Christians and others?

I'm just saying, lets be fair here...take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the specks in other's.

 

[Libertarian_Renaissance]

was under the impression that Christians followed Mosaic Law, we find many laws and punishments in Mosaic law for example the killing of the adulterer. If Jesus did not come to abolish the old law, why now do we pick and choose?

No, Christians don't follow Mosaic Law. Seeing as how things such as the Melchizedek Priesthood, Aaronic Priesthood, temple sacrifices, etc.. have been gone for the last 2,000 years it would be rather impossible to follow the Mosaic religion. Anyways, in context, Jesus said he wouldn't abolish the law prior to his death. If you notice there are many different commandments given before Jesus died that changed after he died. Once he died, Christians believe the law was nailed the cross and 'fulfilled.'

 

[Libertarian_Renaissance]

Nope. Franklin was the only hardcore Deist. Jefferson was what would be later termed a Restorationist Christian. He thought Christianity as in the Bible was true, but that churches had deviated from the true faith and used showmanship as a way to mystify people and hide the fact that they were teaching corrupted doctrine. The famous Jefferson Bible was not an effort to deny miracles, but rather an effort to get to Christ's "pure doctrine" without being distracted by anything else.

Never knew about Franklin, but Paine was definitely a hardcore Deist.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I'm not sure if it's fair to say Jefferson had one specific belief. I think he questioned Christianity and was very critical of it, but was also deeply interested in spiritual or Christian truth at the same time.

 

[Libertarian_Renaissance]

I'm not sure if it's fair to say Jefferson had one specific belief. I think he questioned Christianity and was very critical of it, but was also deeply interested in spiritual or Christian truth at the same time.

He created the Jefferson Bible that removed Jesus' miracles and takes out the book of Revelation altogether. Meaning it just focuses on Jesus's philosophy and what he taught than anything else. People say he did this to help convert the Native Americans and give them the basics of Christianity. New Atheists such as Hitchens believe he did this because he didn't believe in the supernatural and rejected the deified Christ.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I think he considered it as a tool for the Natives as well as the Slaves. To give them a distilled version of the bible to learn basic morals from.

I don't think it was ever really used or published though because he didn't want to deal with the backlash. I figure most of it was just his personal research of the Bible's content and what parts he thought could be discarded while focusing more on the core teachings.

But if it was never published it's hard to be sure what ultimate motive he had for it.

 

[pcosmar]

The US was a reluctant follower in ending slavery, far from a leader, as the poster claimed. And you’re wrong slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.

The Civil War had to do with the Banks more than anything. They were screwing folks.

Slavery was still practiced but importing slaves had long since been outlawed,, and the industrial revolution was making slavery unprofitable. It would have ended on it's own.

As a matter of fact,, there were more Free Blacks in Key West (the southernmost City) at the start of the War than in any Northern City. And there were also White slaves.

The war had nothing to do with slavery. That was used as propaganda. The cause for succession was the Banks and Federal (over) Regulation.

 

[Muwahid]

Well, the conversation that came before the slavery conversation was that if Christians were "in control", they would "lock up scientists". My entire point was that in early Protestant (mostly Calvinistic) America, this was not the case. Calvinistic Protestantism in America was not like the tyranny of the Roman church-state, which was quite notorious for murder, tyranny, and locking up scientists of all kinds throughout the ages.

That was going to be my entire point...but then someone chimed in with the "oooh but what about slavery!"

In your post, I see that you still don't understand that first century Roman servitude was not the same as African chattel slavery. If you are going to equate the two, then you are already starting off with an incorrect premise.

Also, you totally brush over the fact that there were any number of Christian abolitionists in early America.

But, what is your response to the chattel slavery that is occuring TODAY in majority Muslim countries?Slavery alive and well in muslim countries, as one victim speaks out

What about the stoning of homosexuals that happens every day? What about the murder and religious oppression of Christians and others?

I'm just saying, lets be fair here...take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the specks in other's.

In Mosaic law, a slave master is allowed to beat his slave, and there's no problem so long as he doesn't die. That may as well be chattel slavery, oh unless conveniently that part of the old testament is ignored by modern Christians. It's fascinating to see Christians reject parts of their scriptures on one hand the apologists talk about how us Muslims are so terrible we stone homosexuals and adulterers, but oh wait a minute, the old testament is the one that tells believers to do that.

The concept of slavery in Islam (since you keep bringing it up) is very strict, and slavery is looked down upon. It's actually not permissible to call anyone your slave or master in Islam, and the only way to obtain a "slave" is directly through war as in POWs, not through slave trade (person had to transgress against you), so whichever examples you may find in the news do not reflect what Islam taught, Islam taught if you take someone as a captive you treat them as a family member - you can't hit them, make them eat lesser foods than you, or dress in lesser clothing than you. Plus the incredible amount of manumission of slaves, so slavery in the Arabian peninsula dramatically was reduced because of Islam.

Meanwhile we look at Christianity, beating them is fine, they're your property. There's a reason why Christians have always treated their slaves like animals, the scriptures didn't think so highly of them.

 

[PursuePeace]

Once he died, Christians believe the law was nailed the cross and 'fulfilled.'

Yeah, but they were supposed to understand through that message, that where there is love, there is no NEED for the law, for there is nothing evil to restrain.

Unfortunately some (a lot?) of us do not seem to have gotten Christ's whole message. Instead, it's turned into a battle of who is "saved". Well, Christ is the saviour of all. His "fire" is a refiner's fire.
Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[moostraks]

Well, isn't it odd that a Muslim is reacting against a "Christian problem" of slavery that happened hundreds of years ago, but slavery still exists...today...in Muslim countries? To me, its just hypocritical.

Yeah, but they were supposed to understand through that message, that where there is love, there is no NEED for the law, for there is nothing evil to restrain.

Unfortunately some (a lot?) of us do not seem to have gotten Christ's whole message. Instead, it's turned into a battle of who is "saved". Well, Christ is the saviour of all. His "fire" is a refiner's fire.
Love your neighbor as yourself.

well said...

 

[Libertarian_Renaissance]

Yeah, but they were supposed to understand through that message, that where there is love, there is no NEED for the law, for there is nothing evil to restrain.

Unfortunately some (a lot?) of us do not seem to have gotten Christ's whole message. Instead, it's turned into a battle of who is "saved". Well, Christ is the saviour of all. His "fire" is a refiner's fire.
Love your neighbor as yourself.

I've been investigating Gnosticism lately and this seems to agree largely with Gnostic beliefs. Although there are many different sects and denominations within Gnosticism itself. But I lean towards the idea of the Old Testament God being a flawed Creator God that was created by a rather primitive middle eastern culture. Whereas Jesus was a representation of the real Triune God that exists outside of our realm. Following this logic, the barbaric Mosaic Law itself was merely a creation of man. Thank God it hasn't been followed for the last 2,000 years.

 

[jmdrake]

I disagree. Christ had nothing but love, and yet many turned away to hatred for Him. He warned His followers that the world would hate them because they loved Him, and would persecute them as it had persecuted Him. Now all this is irrelevant to the Christian duty to love. But I do not think love would turn away the hatred of the world and the prince of this world.

Some of the people who hate Christ's followers the most call themselves Christians.

I think you two are agreeing, just coming at the issue differently It is a problem that won't be resolved by us no matter how much we might want the hate to end. It isn't the Christianity that is the problem but the abuse of a belief system for selfish gains. The church of the flying spaghetti monster could be accused of having the same problem if it was used as a banner to control others.

Imo the whole religion is supposed to be defined by love, no matter what you do it must be seen as serving the purpose of spreading this love. Give this idea to different people with different histories and we can see you get some unusual results. Problem is that the only ones imo that "get it", "it" being spreading the love, are those that do not employ efforts for serving self glorification or personal desires. People let their head get in the way of the heart. (trust me when I say I am guilty as well of this)

Clarification of my position. One of my sons was complaining the other day that he was trying to break up a fight and was pushed. I read Matthew 5 to him and told him "God says you should be happy if people persecute you for doing good." The same son was also upset at someone who was mad at him even though he (my son) pushed the other boy for no good reason. I told him that he (my son) needed to apologize.

My point is that sadly Christianity has a very mixed record (as does any religion). It's easy to just look at the beauty of the Christian message and the good that many Christians do and say "How could anyone be against that?" Well...most aren't against the good.

 

[fr33]

Men are fallible. God is not. Show me once where Jesus defended 'witch burning' or 'wife and child beating'. Societies that have rejected God suffer from the same ills. Therefore, is this due to Christianity or human nature?



Christians that support Israel do so because they have accepted the false doctrine of dispensationalism, an eschatology that was never taught in any circles until the 19th century.



They were human and had human flaws. I could just as easily say the same of the French Revolution. Areligious buffoons running around killing anyone with an alternative worldview. Same with the Soviets. Or how about the Young Turks genociding Christians because of their religion?



Except the most prolific scientists in human history were largely Christians. Isaac Newton wrote more on theology than he did on motion or gravity. Mendel was a monk during his work with the garden pea. I could go on and on.

Your whole argument is that Christians for the most part have never imitated Jesus. Your excuse is that they aren't perfect. The real excuse is that they have the bible to justify their immoral acts. The text remains. Society changed but the text justifying immorality is still there waiting for the irreligious to give up power. Then watch as the blood sacrifice returns. It was not given up easily.

Stalinism was it's own religion.

 

[James Madison]

Your whole argument is that Christians for the most part have never imitated Jesus. Your excuse is that they aren't perfect. The real excuse is that they have the bible to justify their immoral acts. The text remains. Society changed but the text justifying immorality is still there waiting for the irreligious to give up power. Then watch as the blood sacrifice returns. It was not given up easily.

Stalinism was it's own religion.

For immorality to exist one must first presuppose a source of ultimate morality to exist, via a chief arbitor of some sort. Attempting to justify our definitions right and wrong simply from nature is wholly circular because we must first define morality from an anthropocentric perspective. No doubt, morality in nature is conditional. And any study of this planet's history and the evolution of life will demonstrate that morality has minimal utility, at best. Take the axiom "murder is immoral." Is murder immoral under all circumstances or just some? Is this an absolute statement or a relative one? Would you not murder, cheat, or steal to feed your starving children? Of course, because evolution has favored those individuals. Those with absolute moral codes simply die because they are always inferior competitors. Largely because they cannot adapt to a changing environment. Ergo, claiming that man can be 'moral' without God is partially correct. He can be moral in his own mind under a subjective, ultimately arbitrary, contrived, bullshit delusion. Therefore, is a man justified in punishing another for what is unilaterally conditional? Further, your indignation against the precepts brought forth in the Bible are simply your opinion. A universal moral code cannot accurately be defined without first accepting a Universal Judge from which Truth is absolute.