Sunday, December 11, 2011

On the Question of Are There Any Christians: My Conversation with Jim Part 2

In this particular conversation with Jim, we will see, if we follow Jim's logic, that on the question of are there any Christians, the answer is, NO. When Christians try to hide the fact that Christianity promotes moral laxity, they often times resort to the claim that if a person is committing a sin, then they are not Christian. But this leads to the absurd position that there are no Christians, as they also claim they are born sinners, and no one is perfect, which would mean that they are always sinning!  And if they are always sinning, then there would be no Christians!  Otherwise, we have empirical evidence that shows that Christians commit a higher amount of "sins"  in the form of murder, rape, and so on, than people of other faiths and atheists.  For example, we can the statistics from the federal bureau of prisons shows this to be the case, and as Jesus would say, we know a tree by the fruit it bears.  Jim follows this path, which leads to the absurd position that there are no Christians.

In one of his responses to my previous post, Jim wrote the following:

As I said before, anything that is done that is immoral or against God’s law, even if it is done in “Christ’s name” and regardless of the justification for it, is not Christianity. The Koukl quote I mentioned before covers this. Plenty of people have done things in Christ’s name that are wrong. They’re called false prophets and heretics and make life difficult for people who sincerely love God. No Christian, regardless of status, doing an un-Christian act, can make it okay morally by claiming to do it in the name of God or Jesus. The guy who walked around with a sandwich board and megaphone condemning us all to hell at my undergrad school was wrong, though he would claim to be a Christian doing Christian things for Christ. What he was doing didn’t line up with scripture. If it doesn’t match what Jesus taught, it doesn’t matter what someone calls themselves or what he or she does. If what they are doing is immoral and anti-Christian, it’s wrong. It wouldn’t matter if it is one of the original apostles was saying this. You can’t do something that is counter to God’s teaching and by virtue of your “rank” or standing in Christianity, call it good. It isn’t and God isn’t fooled or blind to it. I’ll talk about that in exactly 6 paragraphs from here.

Luther was wrong about the Jews, despite his contributions in other areas of scholarship. Look at some of the brands of Christianity that have spawned from him. There are synods who believe that if you’re not a member of theirs, you are going to hell regardless of your otherwise doctrinal belief in Jesus Christ. In the end, I know Luther contributed, but his contribution in that vain was not true to Jesus’ teachings about the Jews. Jesus’ teaching was a completion of what God revealed to the Jews first. Jesus himself was a Jew and never condemned their Jewish-ness. He only got mad at Jews who were distorting God’s word and taking advantage of it for their own benefit. Sound familiar? Not to mention, the Jews were God’s chosen people.

In addition, Hitler was heavily influenced by pagan religions, believing that German soil and blood were somehow sacred, amongst other issues that he had. Hitler may have used Luther’s writings to justify aspects of his ideology, but if truth and accuracy are of any importance to us, Hitler was far more heavily influenced by social Darwinism than by Luther’s writings. It’s easy to see this even in the manner in which he spoke. The language he used was not that of Christianity at all. All of what he spoke was anti-semitic, to be sure, but that is surely not all drawn from Luther’s mistaken viewpoint.

Below is my response to Jim.

Dear Jim,

You need to be more clear in your writing, but I know it is difficult when you are attempting to apply Humpty Dumpty semantics and logic. The problem is, either way, you cannot get out of your dilemma.

If only the actions are not Christian, that would mean that the person committing the acts ARE still Christian. Now, as I have already pointed out, the Christian doctrine promotes the belief that they are evil sinners that cannot help but to sin, as they are born evil sinners--which is why Christians continue to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. We see this result for instance, with priests and pastors who molest children, and are just moved to another parish/jurisdiction and are allowed to continue to be priests and pastors--because after all, they are still Christian! I once asked a preacher in front of an audience if a Christian captain of a slave ship who fed a few African babies to the sharks to set an example for the rest of the Africans was still a Christian, he said "Of course--if he still believed in Jesus, as we are all sinners, and no sin is greater than another." Now, we often times hear this, like in the case of Jimmy Swaggart and the likes, when they have been busted with prostitutes that they are, after all, "just human" and they are "sinners"--but they believe in, and love Jesus!! So, as I have said before, Christianity allows for this, given its doctrine of original sin, and salvation, which promotes moral laxity and the process of sin, repent, sin, repent--repeat when necessary.

If you claim that neither the actions nor the person committing the sinful actions, are Christian, then there are no Christians, because according to Christianity, ALL fall short, and are dirty, filthy sinners, as none of them are perfect--except for Jesus.

You have studied far too long under Humpty. Your application of Humpty Dumpty semantics and logic is pathetic. Your oxymoronic attempt to save Christianity only shows its impotence. It only makes sense in Humpty's world, where you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. For what sense does it make to say that, "No Christian, regardless of status, doing an un-Christian act, can make it okay morally by claiming to do it in the name of God or Jesus." How can a person be a Christian, if they are committing an un-Christian act? For as you say, such a person does not love God, and is therefore not a Christian! But that would include ALL Christians, as according to Christianity, ALL fall short, and no one is perfect but Jesus! Therefore, according to what you have said, there are no Christians except for Jesus!

But wait!! Perhaps Jesus was not a Christian either!!--following your Humpty Dumpty semantics and logic. For Jesus was actually not perfect, because he did not keep Yahweh's commandments--and in fact, he preached against them! For instance, he preached against Yahweh's kosher food laws; he had the disciples pick corn on the Sabbath; he stopped the mob from stoning the woman to death for committing adultery, which was one of Yahweh's laws; he had his disciples steal a donkey; he became angry at a fig tree!! Now, this anger cannot be considered "righteous" anger, as the fig tree cannot commit a sin!! Furthermore, it was out of seasons for figs, and the fig tree was doing exactly what it was supposed to do--it was being a "perfect" fig tree! So, using your logic, Jesus did not love Yahweh, or himself, and therefore, was not a Christian too. Therefore, there never have been, nor are there any Christians in the world.

You said:

"He only got mad at Jews who were distorting God’s word and taking advantage of it for their own benefit. Sound familiar?"

Demonstrate to me how the Jews were distorting God's word. In fact, the Jews that Jesus got angry at were keeping Yahweh's commandments. They were supposed to collect taxes and tithes, as the bible instructed them to.

"This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) a half shekel shall be the offering of Yahweh (the LORD). Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto Yahweh (the LORD, Ex. 31:12-14)."

Now, the money changers were exchanging foreign currency for shekels, so that Yahweh's laws could be carried out. So, again, we have Jesus going against Yahweh's laws. When Jesus was confronted by the disciples on this issue, he later asked Peter "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes-from their own sons or from others (Mt. 17:25-26)?" Peter answered that the taxes were collected from others. Jesus said the sons were exempt (Mt. 17:26). The point Jesus was making here was that the taxes were not collected by the tax collectors from the sons (i.e. of spiritual Israel) but for "others."

Here, we have Jesus using Humpty Dumpty semantics and logic! For the aforementioned passage said EVERYONE has to pay taxes. It did not say everyone but the kings and the sons have to pay--it says EVERYONE has to pay taxes. So again, using your Humpty Dumpty semantics and logic, Jesus himself was not a Christian!!

Now, I have spoken on this issue before. Christians have tried to say the Christian god and Jesus are perfect even though they exhibit vices, such as anger and jealousy, of which I have already argued about and discussed. Here, I will point out another dangerous aspect of the "Christian solution" which is to say that when they get angry and jealous it is "righteous." As you said "Jesus himself was a Jew and never condemned their Jewish-ness. He only got mad at Jews who were distorting God’s word and taking advantage of it for their own benefit. Sound familiar? " YES, that does sound familiar!! The so-called "righteous" anger and jealousy has resulted in millions of innocent people being tortured and murdered. After all, since the Native Americans were not following the laws of Yahweh, torturing them and murdering them was "righteous" according to Christianity--as they were not followers and lovers of Yahweh and/or Jesus. This is another example of how Christianity promotes moral laxity. In this case, genocide of those who do not believe like they do. Absolute laws are not absolute, for when one is supposed to never be angry or jealous, but then it is okay to be angry and jealous in this case because it is "righteous"; or when murder is not murder when you murder innocent children because neither they nor their people believe in your god. This is a great lapse in ethics and morality, and promotes moral laxity. No wonder it was so easy for Christians to slaughter so many millions of Africans, Native Americans, Muslims, Asians, Jews etc. who did not believe like them, as it would be considered "righteous" to kill unbelievers of Yahweh and son. This is no ethical standard at all. In comparison to Buddha, and Lao Tzu who was consistent in their teachings on anger, hate, murder, and so forth. As such, their teachings do not promote moral laxity, as the Christian teachings do.

When a religion like Christianity promotes the idea of believing that somehow their soil and their blood is somehow sacred, and that their way is the only way, it leads to moral laxity, such as genocide of groups that are "different." Thus, we see a difference in religions such as Christianity and religions such as Buddhism and Taoism. Empirical evidence supports this. That evidence would be the millions of people who have died horrible tortuous deaths in the name of the gods of such religions as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Jim's logic, leads to the absurd position that there are no Christians.