It is necessary for their survival as Christians.
why do alot of evangelical(born-again) christians seem to be filled with hate
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
It is necessary for their survival as Christians.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
It seems like a lot of other Christians manage a much more live and let live relativistic philosophy, leaving it to God to sort out the judgement of other people's souls. The sin as contagion metaphor running not so strongly, sometimes on the same level as secular people.
I suppose you could argue that they think it is a matter of their survival, but I am not sure the Bible supports the contagion metaphor more than other more tolerant ones.
If you think Jesus was only talking about adulteresses, the first stone scenario might not carry much weight in relation to other kinds of sin. But at least some Christians seem aware it was not limited to stoning and adultery.
In every case it is revelation. What would anyone know about what Jesus said or did without the New Testament accounts?
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The gospel accounts are recollections of happenings on earth and in the flesh. At least thats how they are presented.
Paul's supposed knowledge of Jesus is entirely spiritual. He is not recalling the life of Jesus, but the eternal presence as it revealed itself to his inner vision.
The NT accounts--whether Gospel or Epistle--are revelation. Paul's knowledge both of Jesus and His Gospel came by way of face to face encounters with Jesus Himself.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
No, Paul only enters the picture long after the death of Jesus.
No, Paul was in "the picture" from the very beginning.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Not according to the new testament.
Yes, according to the New Testament.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Ok, post some passages from the gospels demonstrating Paul's involvement with Jesus while Jesus was alive and preaching.
Actually God did send Jesus to Hell for three nights and three days.
I've heard this was to pay for our sins, as Jesus had become Sin Itself on the cross. Whilst this theologically true, i think he rather went to Hell to preach the gospal of victory to the saints.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, I started a thread about that called 'descendit ad infernos'.
MedicineWomen swooped down and stated that the trip to hell was actually an allegory for the path of the sun through hades at night.
Re-read the exchange...you said "Not according to the new testament."
I said "yes, according to the New Testament."
If you wish, I will post some passges from the New Testament.
Well, i am 100% sure the Bible never intended that interpretation. I've seen some of medicineW arguements, and she is far too presumptious on many occasions, such as linking paul as being the same as apollo... rubbish.
Yes their names were identical, but so is Jesus and Joshua, as both are really called ''YESHUA.''
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
My personal belief is that religion in general can produce much hatred and violence in its followers if the followers take scripture literally. Too many people try to "follow in God's footsteps" and when scripture tells us that God killed many people and hates certain groups, many followers senses of right and wrong are deluted. They feel that if God does this or God does that, than it automatically is right because "God is never wrong".
So, that can explain alot of religious hatred toward various peoples; gays, jews, etc etc etc.
For a good example, take a look at the Westborough Baptist Church, my personal mortal enemy. They take parts from the Christian bible and excercise them. But they don't take the postive parts about loving thy neighbors etc etc.
One of my favorite bumper stickers says
"Christianity: Killing millions in the name of God for over 2000 years."
But the same can be said for many other religions.
So, that can explain alot of religious hatred toward various peoples; gays, jews, etc etc etc.
For a good example, take a look at the Westborough Baptist Church, my personal mortal enemy. They take parts from the Christian bible and excercise them. But they don't take the postive parts about loving thy neighbors etc etc.
One of my favorite bumper stickers says
"Christianity: Killing millions in the name of God for over 2000 years."
But the same can be said for many other religions.
Like they say, "Bad company corrupts good character". The application of this principle can be taken to various extents. From "Don't be firends with drunkards" to "We should get rid of everyone who doesn't practice our religion".
As for what is supported by the Bible - that is a very, very wide range, depending on which passages one cites, or in combination with which other passages one cites them. I dare say that this way, pretty much anything has "Biblical support".
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
But in these examples of course the believer can pull back. They don't have to fix the other person or make them disappear - not that withdrawel is something I am advocating. I think love can make one confront one's alcholic brother, for example. But because of the love and not the contagion. In relation to the contagion one can protect oneself. (not that I think navigating this is easy) This areas seems fruitful to me. I am glad we got to it. The moving away as opposed to the need to eliminate. The contagion metaphor. This region seems ripe for assumptions - in me also - about the options and what I think/feel is happening. Good!
yes, Christian aboliltionists vs. Christian slaveowners for example.
The way I see it, the major problem with a religion like Christianity is that people are not taught how to nurture love, they are not taught how to nurture compassion. For them, love, goodwill, compassion are often things or traits that a person either has or doesn't have. Something that is called up at will, or not at all. Something God either bestows upon a person, or doesn't.
One can of course will oneself to feel love, goodwill, compassion for someone - but I think the common Christian understanding only goes so far. And this is not limited to Christians, either, it's common across the board.
But will only gets you so far; sooner or later it wanes, or turns into brute force.
In contrast, in a religion like Buddhism, there is an enormous emphasis on how to develop and nurture love, goodwill, compassion. They have special exercises and practices for this.
Many people frown upon this because they think that such a love, goodwill or compassion simply are not genuine then and one had done better to refrain from such exercises and practices and keep to whatever little or much "genuine" love, goodwill or compassion one has.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Just to add they are not taught to really go into themselves. They can with great confidence say they hate homosexuality but not the homosexual with a straight face. I am not ruling out the possibility of such things but I have found little in my contacts with fundamentalists that gave me the impression they would notice any internal contradictions. They are trained to confuse behavior and words with feelings. They are trained to present as certain. None of which allows one to actually do the kinds of processing necessary to find out what one really feels and why, what one really thinks and why, and to work through to a loving position. (none of this being easy for any of us, but something I feel they are almost trained to avoid. I think they, along with many people, confuse noticing certain feelings as giving them power or being evil. It does not help to pretend we are already monads.)
A recognition of and a willingness to explore internal 'areas' that do not seem aligned with the official position seems fundamental to me.
Tied in with this is if you cannot accept an internal diversity, you will not accept an external one. Self-love and self-compassion is a necessary foundation.