religious discrimination

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

You've quoted the words of Jesus yourself; "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). He repeatedly warned against fake Christians; "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" ( 1 John 4:1). And his response to hypocrites; "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:23). You may not see any difference, but Catholics and Mormons don't believe the same thing, and most of what the Klan spews is not indicative of anything Christ taught. A real Christian simply follows the example of Christ.. Many stray and create religions, denominations, and radical sects that are born of man-made ideologies. Lumping all Christians or Muslims into one group is like saying that all women are identical.. It just ain't true.     

As I expected, you have gone straight to the true Christian defense.  If they are good, they are true Christians.  If they are bad, they are false Christians.  That is the meaning of what you are saying.

I could ignore the fact that you have chosen to change the topic, with a dishonest deflection.  I will focus instead on the implications of what you have said.  That the existence of good Muslims means that Islam is true.  After all -- if we are to know them by their fruits; we must judge Islam by the same standards that we use to judge Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

Not a deflection in the least, there are good & bad Christians, just as there are good & bad Muslims, and I'm guessing there are even good & bad  Agnostics.. Its as simple as this; "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:18). If a Christian does not follow the teachings of Christ, they aren't a good Christian.. And if a denomination adds or subtracts to what Christ taught, they aren't truly following what they profess to believe.

The existence of good Muslims doesn't mean that Islam is true anymore than the existence of good Christians means that Christianity is true.. A "good" Muslim or Christian is just an implication that a believer follows what the Koran or New Testament actually teaches, as opposed to a bad Muslim or Christian who stray from what Mohammad or Christ actually taught.

[Brother Kaman]

Ok, now I am courious, Dan56.  You have indicated several times on various forum threads that you hate all Muslims.  Is this still the case or have you softened and only hate the "bad Muslims?"  Not trying to stir things, just looking for clarification.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Not a deflection in the least, there are good & bad Christians, just as there are good & bad Muslims, and I'm guessing there are even good & bad  Agnostics.. Its as simple as this; "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:18). If a Christian does not follow the teachings of Christ, they aren't a good Christian.. And if a denomination adds or subtracts to what Christ taught, they aren't truly following what they profess to believe.

The existence of good Muslims doesn't mean that Islam is true anymore than the existence of good Christians means that Christianity is true.. A "good" Muslim or Christian is just an implication that a believer follows what the Koran or New Testament actually teaches, as opposed to a bad Muslim or Christian who stray from what Mohammad or Christ actually taught.

Your double standards for Christians and everyone else continue to amaze me. 

If a Muslim does something bad, it proves he is a Muslim.

If a Christian does something bad, it proves that he is not a Christian.

Dan, it gets tedious.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

There was a tree in our yard that was split in half and mostly rotten...every year it still produced an apple on that one branch that remained in tact.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 hours ago, cuchulain said:

There was a tree in our yard that was split in half and mostly rotten...every year it still produced an apple on that one branch that remained in tact.

Yes.  So much for turning to parables for real life guidance.  I'm thinking of the fig tree, killed by Jesus for the crime of not bearing fruit out of season.  

One of the problems with Scripture, is that it can be used to support any conclusion.

[Pete]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  So much for turning to parables for real life guidance.  I'm thinking of the fig tree, killed by Jesus for the crime of not bearing fruit out of season.  

One of the problems with Scripture, is that it can be used to support any conclusion.

Like voting Trump out of reason.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

Like voting Trump out of reason.

Yes.  An awful self inflicted wound.  Wait until his devout Christian following find out how they were fooled.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 11/7/2016 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Your double standards for Christians and everyone else continue to amaze me. 

If a Muslim does something bad, it proves he is a Muslim.

If a Christian does something bad, it proves that he is not a Christian.

Dan, it gets tedious.

No double standard, I applied the same yardstick to both.. A Muslim who does bad is a bad Muslim, just as a Christian or Agnostic who does bad things is bad... Bad people don't need a religion to make them bad.

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  An awful self inflicted wound.  Wait until his devout Christian following find out how they were fooled.

I personally didn't vote for Trump because he was a Christian, I simply held my nose and picked the least of 2 evils  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

No double standard, I applied the same yardstick to both.. A Muslim who does bad is a bad Muslim, just as a Christian or Agnostic who does bad things is bad... Bad people don't need a religion to make them bad.

I personally didn't vote for Trump because he was a Christian, I simply held my nose and picked the least of 2 evils  

People don't need religion to make them bad.  This much is true.  People can do awful things without religion.  Religion does help good people to do awful things.  As in "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.".   As in "Kill them all.  God will know his own".

Beyond that, I let people define themselves.  The KKK insists that they are Christians.  As does the Catholic Church.  As does the Mormon Church.  It is not for me, or you, to tell them that they are not Christian.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The KKK insists that they are Christians.  As does the Catholic Church.  As does the Mormon Church.  It is not for me, or you, to tell them that they are not Christian.

Anyone can claim they are a Christian, but if they don't follow the teachings and example of Christ, they aren't a Christiian. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.... He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2: 4-6). So as it says "You know them by their fruit". That's why I'm comfortable in saying that David Koresh of the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones of the People's Temple, were not Christians, but 'wolves in sheep's clothing' (Matthew 7:15). A duck can claim its an eagle, but if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck. 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Anyone can claim they are a Christian, but if they don't follow the teachings and example of Christ, they aren't a Christiian. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.... He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2: 4-6). So as it says "You know them by their fruit". That's why I'm comfortable in saying that David Koresh of the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones of the People's Temple, were not Christians, but 'wolves in sheep's clothing' (Matthew 7:15). A duck can claim its an eagle, but if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck. 

 

You can not undue 2,000 years of Christian history and horror with a few witicisims.  In particular, when atrocities flow from Scripture.  Whether you like it or not, the Bible has been used to justify many things.  Many of them awful.  It's not my Scriptural interpretation or yours that matters.  Only what happened and is still happening.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You can not undue 2,000 years of Christian history and horror with a few witicisims.  In particular, when atrocities flow from Scripture.  Whether you like it or not, the Bible has been used to justify many things.  Many of them awful.  It's not my Scriptural interpretation or yours that matters.  Only what happened and is still happening.

I remember when I mentioned in the past all the people who got burned at the stake, Dan said well they were heretics. One cannot expect compassion here Jonathan.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I remember when I mentioned in the past all the people who got burned at the stake, Dan said well they were heretics. One cannot expect compassion here Jonathan.

I can ignore the lack of compassion.  Sweeping 2,000 years of history under the rug by saying that they were not true Christians -- that gets on my nerves.  

Then of course, there is the double standard.  Every time a Muslim does something bad -- it's because the religion supports terrorism.  Let the Klan burn a cross on somebody's lawn -- they are not real Christians.  Or, let an Agnostic do something wrong.  It's because of a lack of belief.  It's tedious.  It's irritating.  

Then again, Dan goes beyond the double standard.  It's more like a triple standard.  When Dan comes back on, he will demand to know what Christ did that was bad.  I will mention that poor fig tree that Jesus killed for not having fruit out of season.  Dan will insist that this is a parable and not history.  It is amazing how things are parables when it's convenient, and history when it's convenient.  So predictable.  So annoying.  

If the usual pattern holds, I will then object that Dan's interpretation of this particular parable is anti-semitic.  I've had this argument with him often enough.  Dan will  reply by insisting that it's not anti-semitic by citing the Gospels.

The fault is mine.  I should stop dancing with him.

 

          

Edited November 10, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You can not undue 2,000 years of Christian history and horror with a few witicisims.  In particular, when atrocities flow from Scripture.  Whether you like it or not, the Bible has been used to justify many things.  Many of them awful.  It's not my Scriptural interpretation or yours that matters.  Only what happened and is still happening.

I think your confusing church history with Christianity... You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter? Scriptural interpretation does matter, especially when a denomination, sect, or individuals are promoting things that aren't scriptural.

13 hours ago, Pete said:

I remember when I mentioned in the past all the people who got burned at the stake, Dan said well they were heretics. One cannot expect compassion here Jonathan.

Who was doing the burning, who labeled them heretics, and who issued the penalty? Twas notably the dominate church of the middle ages, which in my opinion, had little to do with Christianity.. Did Christ tell his disciples to burn people at the stake? No, he wept for nonbelievers, and that's the compassion of a true follower, not returning evil for evil.

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I can ignore the lack of compassion.  Sweeping 2,000 years of history under the rug by saying that they were not true Christians -- that gets on my nerves.  

Then of course, there is the double standard.  Every time a Muslim does something bad -- it's because the religion supports terrorism.  Let the Klan burn a cross on somebody's lawn -- they are not real Christians.  Or, let an Agnostic do something wrong.  It's because of a lack of belief.  It's tedious.  It's irritating.  

Then again, Dan goes beyond the double standard.  It's more like a triple standard.  When Dan comes back on, he will demand to know what Christ did that was bad.  I will mention that poor fig tree that Jesus killed for not having fruit out of season.  Dan will insist that this is a parable and not history.  It is amazing how things are parables when it's convenient, and history when it's convenient.  So predictable.  So annoying.  

If the usual pattern holds, I will then object that Dan's interpretation of this particular parable is anti-semitic.  I've had this argument with him often enough.  Dan will  reply by insisting that it's not anti-semitic by citing the Gospels.

The fault is mine.  I should stop dancing with him.

Again, sweeping 2000 years of church history under the rug has nothing to do with Christ.. I could list a litany of Catholic man-made rules that have no NT support. You insist on linking Catholicism to Christianity, but I see them as completely separate.

The fig tree represented Israel, it was an example of Israel bearing no fruit. What happened to the tree, also happened to Israel, nothing antisemitic about any of it. Nothing bad about a prophetic illustration either.   

When you make the same ridiculous claims over and over, I can only respond with the same answers. You find them redundant because you don't really understand the bible.

[mererdog]

Stereotyping is a common basis for religious discrimination.

Negative qualities of some members of a religious group are assumed to be shared by all members of the group. This includes tarring all members of a religious group with the guilt owned by specific members of the group. An example of this is holding all Jews accountable for Israeli government policy. 

A similar phenomenon happens with religious language. Words only have the meaning we bring to them, yet because we are used to relying on shared definitions this fact gets easily forgotten. So we stereotype a religious text by saying "It means X to me, therefore it means X to everyone," (often stated as "it says what it says") or even "It means X to some members of group Y, therefore it means X to all members of group Y." 

Now, the problem with these stereotypes isn't just that they become justifications for treating innocent people poorly. The more people use a stereotype, the more emotionally attached they become to it. Defending the stereotype becomes reflexive. Since stereotypes are oversimplifications, this means that ignoring complexity becomes reflexive. Since the truth is often complex, this means that ignoring the truth becomes reflexive.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I think your confusing church history with Christianity... You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter? Scriptural interpretation does matter, especially when a denomination, sect, or individuals are promoting things that aren't scriptural.

Who was doing the burning, who labeled them heretics, and who issued the penalty? Twas notably the dominate church of the middle ages, which in my opinion, had little to do with Christianity.. Did Christ tell his disciples to burn people at the stake? No, he wept for nonbelievers, and that's the compassion of a true follower, not returning evil for evil.

Again, sweeping 2000 years of church history under the rug has nothing to do with Christ.. I could list a litany of Catholic man-made rules that have no NT support. You insist on linking Catholicism to Christianity, but I see them as completely separate.

The fig tree represented Israel, it was an example of Israel bearing no fruit. What happened to the tree, also happened to Israel, nothing antisemitic about any of it. Nothing bad about a prophetic illustration either.   

When you make the same ridiculous claims over and over, I can only respond with the same answers. You find them redundant because you don't really understand the bible.

Here is a thought for you.  Maybe I do understand the Bible.  Maybe that is why I don't find it convincing.  Maybe it is because I read it from cover to cover, that my faith in it was destroyed.  I did read the Bible.  Carefully.  Several times.  My faith never recovered.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I think your confusing church history with Christianity... You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter? Scriptural interpretation does matter, especially when a denomination, sect, or individuals are promoting things that aren't scriptural.

Who was doing the burning, who labeled them heretics, and who issued the penalty? Twas notably the dominate church of the middle ages, which in my opinion, had little to do with Christianity.. Did Christ tell his disciples to burn people at the stake? No, he wept for nonbelievers, and that's the compassion of a true follower, not returning evil for evil.

Again, sweeping 2000 years of church history under the rug has nothing to do with Christ.. I could list a litany of Catholic man-made rules that have no NT support. You insist on linking Catholicism to Christianity, but I see them as completely separate.

The fig tree represented Israel, it was an example of Israel bearing no fruit. What happened to the tree, also happened to Israel, nothing antisemitic about any of it. Nothing bad about a prophetic illustration either.   

When you make the same ridiculous claims over and over, I can only respond with the same answers. You find them redundant because you don't really understand the bible.

Here is a thought for you.  Maybe I do understand the Bible.  Maybe that is why I don't find it convincing.  Maybe it is because I read it from cover to cover, that my faith in it was destroyed.  I did read the Bible.  Carefully.  Several times.  My faith never recovered.

[cuchulain]

I must ask Dan.  You say those who follow Jesus are true Christians.  What about those who follow the words and teachings of Jesus...but not the rest of the bible?  Care to cite the specific words of Jesus that condemn homosexuality?  That is, if he isn't referencing a part of the rest of the book?  Because, if he is referencing the rest of the book, saying we should follow the entire book...then all those bad parts that are brushed away by saying we should follow Jesus are NOT eliminated.  If we toss the rest of the book...then why is it all still compiled in one document?  If only the teachings of Christ matter, why have the rest?

[mark 45]

what about those who do not believe in christ,but believe in god,or spirit?they and many others consider themselves christians(and before someone says it,i already know about"no one gets  to the father except thru me...").