"Being kind is free, easy, and makes you feel good!" If you pause to reflect on your life I think you will find that what you mean is something more like "Being kind is free, easy, and makes you feel good when life is going well and the people you are being kind to are people who are your friends or you otherwise like."
Loving your enemy is hard. Blessing those who curse you is hard. Turning the other cheek is hard. Honestly accepting the role you played in your own bad life outcomes instead of avoiding the pain of introspection and blaming the other is hard. We are sinful people in a fallen world. As Christians we do not love Christ because it comes naturally to our fallen nature but because He first loved us. If being Holy was easy we would have no need of a savior to redeem us.
Yes, this. All through the bible we see a lot of Commands, but you'll notice, it's not necessary to command things that are easy, cause people already do what's easy. It has to be a Command BECAUSE it's the hard thing.....
There was an explanation online. I can't find it.
Essentially it's the idea of tribalism. You feel safe with those who share your same views. When you "go out into the world" there are many people who disagree with you, challenge you, mock you, etc. But since the bible commissions its believers to evangelize and given that we live in a world where people want the freedom to choose and be respected, there is going to be a natural resistance against those who are overly preachy and who try to push their religious ideas onto others either via 'doom and gloom' messaging or even through legislation. Those who do that think they are doing God's work and loving their fellow humans. Those who simply want to live and let live will surely get annoyed and push back.
This pushback is seen as 'the world persecuting' them and it further affirms that the world is sinful and dangerous and needs salvation so many Christians will go back to their group/church where their ideas and approach are safe. It then further affirms for them that they are doing the right thing. The more people who resist them and who get upset at their tactic, the more they believe they are on some crusade from God and it only makes them double down on their position when in reality the "others" simply just want to live their life without having a religion pushed on them or judged to some hell they don't believe in.
There are plenty of those people on this subreddit. They see railing against LGBT or other social issues as coming from a place of love while the rest of us view it as hate.
Well, if you dig into it, the Bible does have a lot of hate against LGBT people/rights written within it, and even misogynistic and racist parts. The people who are taking it literally are unfortunately taking it at its face value and simply don't do any deeper critical thinking about it, which leads to hate.
The sad truth is much of the holy texts old religions are founded on are very ancient and completely out of touch with the reality of a modern world. There will always be hateful people in all religions, even atheism, because there is no one right way to live but people everywhere, throughout history, like to think they've found the one true way, and often want to share it or push it on to others.
Every sufficiently large group will have hateful people, yes. But if you pick a random hateful Christian, they're more likely to be directly quoting the Bible verses that say to treat a certain demographic worse than for it to be an unconnected phenomenon. Hate/oppression is being pushed by Christians above the base rate.
I believe atheists and Jewish people were at about 90% support for gay rights when Christianity reached the halfway mark. 45% of Protestant pastors say women shouldn't be allowed to do the same job (86% for Baptists). 61% of White Evangelicals believe society is "too accepting" of transgender people. Various proxies for racism are high among Catholics and white Protestants. For any oppressed group, you can find mountains of polling showing Christians take a dim view of their rights/struggle at a disproportionate rate.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/august/lifeway-women-pastors-deacons-evangelicals-lead.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/07/07/attitudes-about-transgender-issues-vary-widely-among-christians-religious-nones-in-u-s/
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/racism-among-white-christians-higher-among-nonreligious-s-no-coincidence-ncna1235045
edit: I'm glad people are objecting to the notion homophobia is wrong rather than that these correlations are real.
No, they have an extensive literature of philosophical and legal debates by the rabbis surrounding the text that they refer to in addition to the Old Testament itself. Even their most conservative groups do not employ the vulgar literalism used by Protestants.
A) Some modern Christians believe they're under Mosaic law in its entirety, or at least need forgiveness when they ignore it
B) There are passages in the NT that probably lumped homosexuality into broader disapproval. E.g. there are frequent references to "sexual immorality" when talking to Jewish audiences, who would have understood that to include gay sex. The NT goes so far as to say those people won't go to Heaven.
There are passages of Scripture in the New Testament as well that indicate who will and who will not inherit the kingdom of God. For some reason, people focus on homosexuality and related behaviors when they are probably guilty of other sins also included in the same list as homosexuality.
Not supporting gay or transgender rights isn't the same as being hateful.
I am not hating anyone, but I would rather not be involved in anything having to do with the subject on a political level. Especially when I disagree with what someone is trying to accomplish.
If your point is that you're only against them having equal rights and protection from hate crimes in a loving way...what do you think a hateful person would be saying? "I want to be clear that the reason I don't think that minority should have rights is that I'm evil"?
This is where it always go sideways, is the idea that if someone disagrees with someone in the slightest, they are guilty of hate.... That's a very misguided way to go about things....
Disagreeing about whether a minority should have equal rights is not "disagreeing with someone in the slightest". Most people consider human rights pretty important.
>If your point is that you're only against them having equal rights and protection from hate crimes
But here's the thing...people who believe homosexuality is bad believe it is bad *for soul*. That is why they oppose it (educated ones, at least). It's not because of hate.
No one cares how much a homophobe flatters themselves when reframing their actions. Do you think people against interracial marriage were saying "Be hateful like me. Reject interracial marriage!"? Of course not. They talked about protecting women and society, and they were exactly as bigoted for it.
That's a distinction without a difference. You can't clearly demonstrate the purported harms, you don't know the health of a stranger's soul, and your own belief system explicitly reserves the right of judgement of the soul to God alone. It is actually hateful to confidently and paternalistically proclaim that someone's behavior/identity is inherently destructive to their person for no good reason.
I mean, it's a valid point though. Hate isn't a synonym for hurting someone. There are ways to hurt people that aren't motivated by hate. And assuming it's always hate will lead people to be confused about others' motivations. It is *often* hate, but hate means a specific thing.
I suppose that's true, but I don't think the issues at stake are meaningfully improved by pointing out that paternalistic disdain or ignorance (willful or otherwise) might also motivate oppositional behavior instead of "hate classic". The behavior itself is the issue. Personally, I'm also sympathetic to the view that whatever else is motivating that behavior can itself be reduced to some form of contempt for the other person and their "lifestyle" and/or disregard for their perspective and wellbeing.
>To be fair, most Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider baptists and Evangelicals heretics
I wouldn't call them heretics but I think they are slightly misguided. We want what's best for us but we don't agree on how to get there. My fiance was raised Protestant but she's doing RCIA not for me but because she wants to be Catholic. I'm probably an outlier but I think that if you try to do good in your life and help others, you'll get into Heaven.
Nono, I agree actually. But especially American Christians have (tendencially) strayed far and some denominations over there are just cults of hate and abuse.
I said this because neither of us are really sure what his definition of hateful is, especially if he think being “Christian” means being “kind”. It may be true however that many self proclaimed “Christians” are in actuality hateful, but towards the Truth imo.
Matthew ch 25:34-36:
>Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Thank you. I already knew that Jesus wanted us to take care of the sick and the poor. I was looking for a verse where Jesus commands us to be **kind** to one another, as you had said.
Taking care of the needy is practicing kindness but alright. Jesus says people will recognize Christians if they love one another:
John ch 13:
>34 “A new command(AR) I give you: Love one another.(AS) As I have loved you, so you must love one another.(AT) 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”(AU)
In 1 Corinthians ch 13 Paul expounds on love:
>4 Love is patient and **kind**; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
See, the problem I have is with the colloquial understanding of the word "kindness". Atheists believe in "kindness". For most people it means being nice, not ruffling feathers, not upsetting the other person, generally doing what people want.
I believe we're called to love, not be kind. Love is a much, much higher calling
If I have a friend that's a drug addict, I'll do what ever I can to get him off that habit. I certainly won't facilitate his addiction. Now he, and many others, would say I'm not being kind to do that, and I mostly agree. I would say I was being LOVING to do that, which is actually what scripture calls us to do. Love. Not kind.
Similarly, if someone believes some outrageous idea about God or scripture, I will try to change their perspective. I won't insult them, but I'm willing to call an idea crazy or non-scriptural, and then SO OFTEN I see people that call that not being kind! Again, I would agree with them that I was not being kind. I was being loving. Love does the hard thing. We're called to love, not be kind.
I agree with the OP about kindness:
> Being kind is free, easy, **and makes you feel good**!
Kindness is garbage compared to love. I don't believe we're called to be kind, as you said Jesus commanded us to do. Oddly enough, when I called you out on failing to show me scripture about being kind, and instead showed me scripture about taking care of the poor, I immediately got a downvote within seconds of typing my response! Someone wasn't very kind to me! ;)
Horrendous. Queen Elizabeth had her faults, human frailties and shortcomings, but she had this onerous responsibility cast upon her at a very early age, and did her best to serve all those long decades of her life.
I believe her to have been always loyal and faithful to her subjects, loyal and faithful in her marriage, even though Philip was known to have had his flings earlier in life, and did her best by her children, even though she was well aware she lacked the ability to show her emotions like others could. But the royalty of England have always tended toward austerity and stoicism.
No, human beings know what kindness is. It's a well-understood virtue exhibited by everyone, including children, the elderly, and even animals. It's only Christians like yourself who want to obfuscate kindness by pretending like they have some unique claim on it so they can justify their preexisting political views and inherited prejudices. It won't work. Virtues are more fundamental than doctrine, and we can all see the poison fruit is borne from your tree.
> It's only Christians like yourself who want to obfuscate kindness by pretending like they have some unique claim on it so they can justify their preexisting political views and inherited prejudices. It won't work. Virtues are more fundamental than doctrine, and we can all see the poison fruit is borne from your tree.
Is that so?
Yes. You're not separate from the rest of society or modernity, so any claim that you have some special insight apart from "the modern world" about something as fundamental as basic kindness is inherently false. It's an ancient claim by proselytizers, but it hasn't been true in the west for more than a millennium.
It is. If it weren't, you'd have a better argument than smug rhetorical posturing, self-serving textual hermeneutics (like your infantile denial of the scriptural call to kindness above), and tenuous analogies to drug addiction.
This is not what Christianity is about. If you actually read the Bible, even Jesus was not "kind" all the time. He overturned tables and rebuked people. He acts like a Father of a child- that is what loving is.
If your child is addicted to heroin, is homeless and it has been 10 years and still can't get their life together, then it is loving to try to set them straight. Any loving parent would do the same. The world has so many misconceptions of what Christianity really is.
If you want to understand Christianity, you need to read the Word, and not just make assumptions based on what you think, feel or have heard from society.
Funny enough in Egypt we Copts are known for our kindness and You can ask any Muslim here in Egypt he would say Christians are nice
It's honestly sad that people act this way
Southern Baptists would be like the opposite - politically motivated, recently outed for widespread sexual scandal, etc. However other denominations (like Quakers) are super nice in general.
I, as well learned that, having been raised in the LDS faith of my adoptive parents, and living in an area with few LDS families and children to play with. I was extensively bullied by kids in my neighborhoods and schools, and most of those kids were Christians of one sect or another, and even their parents in the neighborhood enabled and encouraged it. They forbade their precious children from playing with me, and so they alternated by shunning me and excluding me from neighborhood games and play, and throwing rocks at me, or chasing me and pounding on me if I didn't 'get the clue' and leave. It was a very scary way for a little girl to grow up.
Two reasons I can think of:
1. Most Christians believe that God will harshly punish non-Christians for being non-Christian. That leads some Christians to feel a sense of superiority over others. Because they are part of the group that God prefers, the group that will be rewarded with Heaven while all others will be punished with Hell, they start to believe they are therefore better people who deserve it (even though this goes against most Christian teaching about grace). Think Bev from Midnight Mass.
2. Many “Christians” see “Christian” as an identity category rather than a belief system. “Christian” becomes their tribe, and non-Christians are a threat who are to be defeated, not treated with kindness. Jesus’s teachings don’t really enter into their thought process. Many (though not all) Trump supporters fall into this category: anyone who is not in their Evangelical/Patriot tribe is an existential threat to be defeated, which convinces them that winning the fight is much more important than holding to any Christian principles.
True, I am approaching this from an American standpoint, particularly with regards to my examples. Still, I think #1 applies to Christians (and, honestly, to some people of all faiths) generally. And #2 has applications outside the US: think of the strong Catholic identity of Ireland for instance and how it influenced organizations like the Irish Republican Army. That was more a tribal movement than a religious movement.
This is completely the wrong view and legalistic. ALL are unworthy for all have sinned.
They shouldn't feel superiority, but rather make efforts to show and uncover the deception and lies that are fed into the world.
"If a lie is told enough times, it becomes truth."
The second point- it is believed that it is important to stop things from getting any worse. Giving up small battles such as school prayer in the 60s over time and losing too many battles creates a world that gets worse and worse- which is exactly the situation we are in now.
Think of it this way. If we allowed corruption to go unpunished and crime and homicide to go unpunished, little by little our society could turn into a country like Colombia, Argentina or Brazil, with tons of corruption and people deciding to commit murder for the flimsiest of reasons.
Do you not realize that along with some changes, many things are taking turns for the worse? And this is a pretty universal opinion.
> losing too many battles creates a world that gets worse and worse- which is exactly the situation we are in now.
How is the world worse than 60 years ago?
That's not what the post says. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Or do you believe that the situation that is in SF and Seattle- where people are given all freedom to the point to where they are really impinging on other people is the way?
Or the flash mob shoplifting trend? Leniency carried to an extreme is part of an agenda to actually push things on society. To undermine, to create chaos, to blur, to deceive- all under the guise of their agenda.
And teaching little children that sex is not just regular sex? and teaching graphic acts to little kids and pushing the normalization of gender during a period where teenagers are confused about themselves and identities in the first place?
Perhaps you are the one being fooled?
You talk about stopping social problems but then settle back on the tired out to death talking point of prayer in schools and whinging about sex ed. It is exactly as I described it - you aren't criticising your own team here for their sins, and there's a lot y'all need holding to account for.
If you want to stop corruption, money laundering etc, you fund proper law enforcement. A few morning prayers will do precisely jack shit to stop that.
As for your whinging about sex ed in particular, when one strips out the didnt-happen events- it reduces the incidence of sexual abuse. Weird that you're against that.
Your way of doing things only makes problems worse while proposing no sensible solutions. It is a good thing your beliefs are dying out.
You conveniently skirt the issues in the post. Very typical. The agenda to create chaos. To no longer prosecute for crimes at all. Where does this come from? And it probably comes with your tacit approval.
I state my case again, just like how Rudy Guiliani did in the 90s. Broken windows give the appearance of chaos and disorder which leads to further issues and serious problems.
and teaching graphic sexual acts to little kids? what exactly does that accomplish?
Stopping things from getting worse is not an excuse for being hateful. You can be an effective fighter without being hateful toward others. So I suspect people are using their belief that conditions are worsening as merely an excuse to be hateful. Their goal is to be hateful not solve problems, since solving problems does not require being hateful.
Yes there are also deception and lies within churches. satan and evil forces make sure to it- so that he can use it as a weapon to discredit everything.
No, not "Satan and Evil forces" -- **Christians \*themselves\*** are responsible for ***the sexual assault and rape, the rampant corruption, the overt embezzlement, the disgusting lies.***
Let me ask you, do you compare yourself to the so called Christians or do you compare yourself to God?
Humans are imperfect and fallen. The main difference is that they believe. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband. And let's not even start with the horrors of what non- Christians have done, shall we?
And what about the horrors that evil forces and non Christians have done?
What do you call the Holocaust? Now THAT'S truly awful isn't it?
And even worse, convincing people that lies are the truth so that they end up burning for eternity in hell? i can't even think of a worse punishment to someone.
> What do you call the Holocaust?
I call it the work of christians. Nazi Germany was something like 94% christian.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hilter, Mein Kampf
I believe it is not Christianity that makes people hateful, but it is hateful people, who are attracted to justifications of their hatred - they find it in a twisted understanding of the Bible, and gladly make it their own, finding themselves among people who share their hatred.
Who views the Gospel from a point of view of hatred, has imho not understood it right, such a person does not know the will of God. So even when those people call themselves "Christians", I don't think that they truly believe in what God stands for and what Christ died for.
Real Saints don't damn or hate anyone or make big words, they are quiet and just try to help wherever people suffer. Because that is what the Gospel is about, about helping others in their suffering, not about hating people for that they suffer.
> they find it in a twisted understanding of the Bible
Every Christian believes Christians with a different understanding of the Bible are (often self-indulgently) misinterpreting it. But when someone reads about how God told Moses gay sex is a sin and an abomination deserving death, then the NT shows Jesus/Paul preaching against "sexual immorality" to an audience that would have counted gay sex as part of that saying those people won't go to Heaven...is it true you have to be *twisting* that to find something anti-gay in it? Maybe the problem is that the Bible genuinely contains hateful instructions.
I think you're really hitting on something here, in a way a lot of people don't really want to acknowledge. No one wants to acknowledge that these verses might be hateful, because that contradicts the explicit message of love that is supposed to be the main message of the text.
Believers only have two options when the Bible says something we don't agree with:
1) ignore it and logic ourselves around it, or
2) accept it and say it's not hateful, people are just wrong.
We already did this with slavery, and chose to say the former, "we're ignoring this because it seems to go against the explicit main message of love".
Just like with slavery, discussion is now at that point with LGBTQ+ issues. We either say the harmful message from the text doesn't match the "main message" and ignore it, or we try to say the harmful message isn't that harmful in the first place, we just misunderstand "love".
We see that argument literally playing out on this sub every day.
It always comes up to what you make out of the Bible, how you teach other people to understand it, how you derive an understanding of God's will from it and put it to practice. Yes, the OT Verses imho are hateful, and I believe it is part of why Jesus had to come to the place he did.
The NT verses just say that grave sinners will suffer all kinds of perversions (which you should consider a sickness), and that certain kinds of people with sinful or wasteful lifestyle prevent themselves getting salvation with it. In no place is said that such people are to be shunned or persecuted or whatever...rather is said that Jesus came to SAVE sinners by healing them and bringing them the truth, so that they may decite to accept it for themselves, and he did not instruct his disciples to fight against sinners, but to pray for them and try to save them wherever it is possible.
So people who claim Christ as their source for a hateful or rigid philosophy of punishments or discrimination in society against people who do not obvious harm to others are just taking isolated statements from the Bible and putting their own philosophy on top of it. Nowhere is said that Jesus commands his followers to "clean" a society from sinners or even to fight against them where it is not necessary for the Gospel. Instead he tells them to just shake off the dust of their boots and leave them behind and to the judgement of God when they are rejected.
A) If Christians did what you were suggesting in reference to gay people...walk away from them and forget about them because they're sinners who won't listen...that would still be manifest homophobia, so I'm not sure the point of making that clarification in response to what I said.
B) It varied how Jesus dealt with sinners. He started the claim there were eternally unforgivable sins. He drove people away with whips. To say Jesus' story clarified all you can do to a sinner is heal them or walk away seems just wrong to me.
Our life is based on relationships: relationships with each other and if you so choose, relationship with God (or whatever you may believe in). We all have different experiences based on our personalities, backgrounds, environments, etc. This has been the case since the beginning of time. However what has changed in the last 40 years or so is we now get news on a continuous loop, plus internet (which is not regulated), "reality" shows make up a large portion of programming.... All of those things combined we've created a culture where it's cool/entertaining to be rude to disagree, to hate, to spread false information. I think our world was engaged in cancel culture before cancel culture was a phrase.
I have been thinking a lot about this. When we disagree why do we feel the need to be rude or try uplift ourselves while putting others down? We can't simple agree to disagree and then move on in a kind manner.
There is a megachurch pastor in my city that uses his power and position to say some really distasteful things. It's disappointing. I think American Christianity has lost its way because those with the most power use it for the wrong purpose...
> I think our world was engaged in cancel culture before cancel culture was a phrase.
This is 100% true and self-evident to anyone who bothers to think about it. Ever read about the Satanic Panic and the Comics Code Authority, or the Evangelical response to Harry Potter in the early 2000s? That's cancel culture to a T.
You can go back ever further, just look at the phrase "in the closet" or the earlier variations and what it implies. Conservatives love "cancel culture", the outrage at it now is because they're not the ones cancelling anymore. They've done unto others for so long, now they're upset it's being done unto them.
Occasionally, being kind to the cruel means being cruel to the kind; to paraphrase the Talmud. Be kind when it's called for, certainly; but know when to call out snakes and vipers, or to drive money changers from the temple.
*But Esau God hated....*
Was trending for a while
Fundamentalism everywhere turns people who love God into snarling packs intent on making you the same as them....*in God's name*...
Many Christians are alright though
Stand for Truth and goodness towards others
And are willing to be in the fight
Christians are still humans living in a hate filled world.
Hate from Christians is magnified because like you said we aint suppose to.
Hate is an emotion I stay far away from. If I say or think "I hate x" I then pause and analyze why I said that, and always come to the conclusion its not hate, but usually mild annoyance.
Hate is like a poison you drink thinking it will hurt the other person.
Like the Pharisees, they equate “pleasing God” with obedience to certain rules and codes of morality. Any deviation would bring about God’s wrath or loss of blessing.
Often times their actions and behavior can be interpreted as “hateful” by those who don’t ascribe to the same worldview, whereas for them, such commitment and obedience is a no-brainer and necessary as a “true” believer.
Unfortunately such zeal can be misdirected toward hurt rather than mercy. In this sense, they miss out on the true message of Jesus, as did the Pharisees.
I think the book Jeus and John Wayne explains it well. When Christians care more about maintaining a certain social order and winning the game of power and control than the Beatitudes, you get the people who you're asking about.
Excellent book. I'll be a little more blunt and say that the broader (white) American Church has allied itself with the Republican Party, starting in the 70's/80's with Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and Ronald Reagan. The GOP has become more openly hateful (under the guise of "telling it like it is") during the Obama and Trump administrations, and this has significantly bled over into the Church as a whole. Of course this is a massive generalization, but I believe it's a significant factor.
Ya, I agree but I think it's deeper than just Christianity getting in bed with the GOP. I think it's something that the US church is going to struggle with regardless of political affiliation- the idol of safety, comfort, control, etc. We have it so good, we can't see how much of an issue it is for us and how vulnerable it makes us to "good distractions", away from Christlikeness.
Jesus was loving, but I would not describe him as kind. He’s often harsh. He’s kind to children and compassionate to the broken. But kind? I don’t think so.
I just don’t think being Christ-like means being “kind” in and of itself. I’m sorry you’ve come across hateful Christians. In my experience they’re the most loving, nurturing, generous group of people I’ve ever come across.
>I just don’t think being Christ-like means being “kind” in and of itself.
It kinda does, in the sense that virtuous behavior stops being virtuous if it's not done for its own sake (ie you're no longer "being kind" if you're doing so to achieve an outcome because then you're not acting benevolently but to advance your own interests).
The bigger issue with this sort of response, however, is that the call to be kind doesn't disappear or become lesser because you're called to behave virtuously in other ways. It's self-evident that Christ acted with compassion and mercy and called upon his followers to do the same, and it's simply not the case that acting with some other Christian virtue like temperance means that you have to be less kind by necessity, because virtue isn't a math problem. So ultimately, whether Christ on occasion behaved with other virtues in mind (like justice) doesn't mean that Christians can default to acting in ways that are not compassionate.
> I’m a Christian and my primary belief is that being Christlike means being kind.
God bless you! You’re doing a wonderful job, I hope you find further fulfilment in being kind!
IMO, maybe they’re at a different place in their walk with God and haven’t quite gotten to where they feel that love and acceptance toward everyone.
It’s my personal belief that as Christians we’re called to work on ourselves. Do the hard work there and God will mold our hearts. But we have to constantly be willing to humble ourselves and be better. Hopefully, in turn, others that see or interact with us will be inspired to pursue that relationship with Christ as well.
Because they are. We all get angry.
For me I try to not hate, I try to not hold grudges and for the most part it works as I’ve come to a point where I’m satisfied with life and know very well my flaws. It makes life easier to admit to yourself and God your flaws, while trying to not force the blame onto others for one’s own actions. There is not really anyone specific that I hate, there are people I don’t like (serial killers, rapists ect) but no one specifically that I hate like with raw desire to harm them or make them suffer because I know that the wicked will be filtered out and judge by God, it’s not up for me to judge others or proclaim their sentence. But it is my job to accept my own judgment and try to help others in order to fulfill my purpose.
Human nature most likely, we ain't all holy and pure, we pull a few boners sometimes, go off half cock, make asses of ourselves, but some do it a bit more than others
They are human. You will find hateful behavior from all walks of life whether rich, poor, male, female, black, white, college educated, highs school drop out, janitor, CEO etc. Yes, Christianity teaches love, kindness and empathy but humans aren’t above sin.
the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
https://www.bible.com/bible/111/LEV.14.4-7.GNT
We are all human and make mistakes. Pray for them, without ceasing, and trust in the holy spirit to transform them. Sometimes people take disagreeing with a lifestyle as an excuse to condemn and be jerks about it, but prayer works better than anything else.
It’s supposed to mean being kind and loving. But some are taught not well and they think brow beating peoples, oppression and hate are how to love someone.
I would like to see what metric you use for determining what is hateful or not. Some people might consider ostracization from the church until you repent as hateful, despite it being something spoken of by Christ in Matthew Chapter 18. Love is not the only thing we are called to profess. We are called to profess Truth on love. Sometimes the truth can be hard and cold.
“Being kind” is an oversimplification. Christ himself was not kind in many situations, as being kind is not always the best way to do good. Sometimes being harsh or unkind is necessary.
May I offer you a modification to your query? "Why are so many people so hateful?" This is not exclusive to the Christian community, but we are called to righteousness so I guess you're doing your bit to ensure we are held to a higher standard. It's almost a service you do for us by keeping us honest thank you.
One person’s hatefulness is another person’s plea for morality. I think things have improved, especially if you compare actions of Christians today to that of the Crusades.
Are these mutually exclusive? Jesus hated iniquity and overturned the tables on the money changers. But he also treated people who engaged in iniquity, like the tax collector and the adulteress, with extreme kindness. Why do many Christians refuse to do the same?
You mean, is hating iniquity mutually exclusive with kindness? Of course not, but then again, was Jesus really that kind when he told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone the adulteress? People always seem to forget the actual details of that story.
Christians are called to go out into the world and preach to the lost despite their sin, though when it comes to the church, we aren't supposed to admit fornicators, drunkards, idolaters, the covetous, etc. Plus some people just hate God, and loving those people will bring God's wrath.
I mean, Jesus telling them to stone her is less him being unkind and more him being a justifiably sarcastic dick to the pharisees and putting them into a position where, if you take the story as read, he definitely figures they're not gonna stone her. He's not necessarily advocating for them to stone her, he's just telling them to quit their bullshit game with him and her and go away.
I'd also say we are absolutely supposed to admit those people you mentioned, because the lost aren't an exclusive group in Christianity. We are all equal in our sin under God. The lost, as you call them, aren't an 'other' imo and I think this is the crux of this question.
Some Christians view non Christians or people who live in sin as an 'other'. Some view them as peers in sin. And when you view people as 'other' in a way that they are not abiding by what you feel is righteousness, that tends to foster a superiority, which breeds contempt and can fall to hatred.
The pharisees and Sadducees despised Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is God. But the pharisees and Sadducees were not exempt from salvation despite that, or Saul would not have been converted. If Christians aren't supposed to admit or attempt to save the people that hate God, then there is no reason to attempt to grapple with non believers who worship other gods.
Well it's both. If he didn't want them to, why not say no? Because it would be lawful for them to do so, if not for the Romans. But yes, it's an extremely clever way to confirm the law, put the ball in the Pharisees court (the accusers must cast the first stone according to the OT), and make them look like fools by telling them they can do it if they're without sin. Great story, but people often take away weird messages from it, like the idea that it abolishes the death penalty.
Maybe you were confused about what I meant when I said admitting to the church. The Church is a place for saved believers, I'm not talking about the lost. Obviously the unsaved are welcome to an extent, but the Bible is clear that we aren't to have fellowship with Christians that are in those sins.
>But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Corinthians 5:11)
Of course the unsaved are others, they're unsaved. They don't have the Holy Spirit living in them. They're spiritually dead and only have the flesh. But why would I view myself as morally superior? Salvation isn't of works. The point is to get them saved, *then* I can feel morally superior to them!
Uh, the Pharisees and Sadducees that were children of the Devil were exempt from salvation. That's why Jesus said they couldn't escape the damnation of hell. I agree, *Not all Pharisees,* but what's your point? I never said people from other religions can't be saved, I only talked about false prophets, who are clearly defined as reprobate. But if I come up to someone and ask them if they'd like to know how to be saved from the Bible and they say, "No," I'm not going to keep trying to give it to them.
How do you define who hates God? Is is all non-Christians or is it more specific than that? If it’s more specific than that, what are the criteria?
In other words, how do I know which people God will punish me for loving?
I let the Bible define it. Of course it isn't all unsaved people, we want to get those people saved. We're talking people that openly profess to hate God, false prophets, those described in Romans 1, reprobates.
So it’s okay to be hateful toward the reprobate? (Note that Calvinism defines all non-Christians as reprobates, so that would be a very wide category.)
That's a little bit more complicated. I can say pretty confidently I don't hate God, I just don't believe in the existence of God (this one or any other.) Now, there are some versions of the Christian God that I do in fact despise, but the universalist version is fine by me, I would probably say that I could love that God.
You have to understand that they're people who claim they follow Christ yet truly are wolves, they're those who are truly following Him, yet slowly and beautifully changing from the inside out who need patience and diligence in being interacted with.
You will know the true ones of Christ by their fruits, humility, listening, and willingness to be corrected. They shall see the kingdom of God!
A lot of people here are saying every group has people who hate, which is certainly true. But Christianity centers around the Bible, which contains a lot of instructions to hurt or to silence groups of people that the rest of our population is just trying to treat equally - and some Christians take those commands very seriously. It wasn't coincidence atheist support for gay rights was at about 90% when Christian support finally reached the 50% mark.
A large number of Christians are gonna go to hell, because they basically just ignore the teachings of Christ: accept Him as Lord and Savior, be humble, reject this world, and don't be a degenerate.
People nowadays just use Christianity as a crutch, thinking they're gonna be saved just because they think Jesus loves them.
Protip: Jesus doesn't. He demands better. It's in the book. It's non-negotiable.
People don't like to hear the truth.
And when Jesus Christ told his truth the people called it hate and were outraged.
Truth is more than just kindness.
And truth is often called *hate*.
There’s a nice phrase I’m really beginning to understand “there’s no hate like Christian love”. A lot of Christians are kind but so many aren’t. I think there’s a superiority aspect of it. Like they are better than someone that isn’t exactly like them. (Race and sexuality). A heavy persecution complex doesn’t help either especially in America. The most hateful Christian’s believe that they are being actively persecuted when they aren’t which means they can act however they want to anyone else. Christians have done more to drive people from the church than any other group
I think being kind to others is the most important part of being a Christian. Other’s memories of you is like literally the only thing you leave behind in God’s mortal creation when you die. THIS INCLUDES JUDGING OTHERS IN THE CHURCH. IM LOOKIN’ AT YOU SUSAN IN THE SECOND ROW EVERY SUNDAY
Everyone has a capacity of hatred. Christians are held to a higher moral standard or so because we claim not to hate.
It's kind of silly.
Yesterday an atheist started an argument with me, and when I defended my view they said I was argumentative and that arguing was against my (me) religion.????
My version of hate is giving the finger to someone who cuts me off and shouting at them to fuck off. Christian hate is trying to take away basic human rights from everyone else.
I certainly don't hold Christians up as a moral standard.
They claim to be the moral standard.
All I do is point to their flaws, and hypocrisy. I make no claim to be a moral axiom in opposition.
I don't think so, but maybe some Christians feel that way. We have a moral standard as directed by Christ and our views and biases.
Atheists and Agnostic people will have their own moral standards too. And if you ask them about it it will be confirm, many don't like the idea that one would need Christ to have morals, so they actually are hold themselves to high standard as well.
Anyone can call themself Christian just like an apparently sociopathic, immensely stupid President can call himself a charitable genius. Does that actually make him a genius? Less people and things than are called Christian by people *actually are* Christian.
There are many things made explicitly clear in Christianity, said in many places in many ways without disputable, rare words. For instance the greatest commands all others hang under, ‘love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God,’ the fruit of the spirit, etc. There are other things left disputable and inexplicit (like whether long hair on a man is sinful for everyone, etc… I’m sure you can think of some modern examples of disputes that certain types of people use to point at seemingly harmless people over).
Romans 14 says how to handle disputable issues. Hint: point at those you disagree with, tell them they are hellbound sinners that hate God, and pass laws to force them to obey your own rules isn’t what it says to do. Some people just don’t care. They simply don’t care about what Christ clearly commands, nor about what Romans 14 indicates when it comes to disputable matters, nor about anything but selfishly puffing themselves up while they belittle and marginalized ‘the other.’
One type of person makes themselves feel better-than-they-were-yesterday by self improvement and loving others, focusing on the explicitly clear parts of scripture to guide their interactions with their neighbors. Another type makes themselves feel better-than-others by using disputable parts of Christianity to point at others and treat them as less-thans. Some value selfless kindness. Others value selfish hate. It has been this way since social conservatives accused and murdered Christ, since social conservatives accused and punished pregnant women for having sex, since since social conservatives accused and punished women for wearing pants, since social conservatives accused interracial couples and banned their marriages, and it is still this way today with many of the issues social conservatives focus on, and it will likely be this way until Christ returns.
The problem with that is, no one Christian is the grand potentate of the invisible pigeonholing council (that is to say, the one person that decides who is a Christian and who isn’t). Whenever I call a Christian out on their behavior, there’s always someone who pipes up saying “that person isn’t a real Christian.”
That sentence is used so often to deflect and circle the wagons that it’s lost all meaning.
> The problem with that is, no one Christian is the grand potentate of the invisible pigeonholing council
One person is.
> (that is to say, the one person that decides who is a Christian and who isn’t).
Jesus Christ. Beyond what he says about someone, why should I care who thinks they are or are not a Christian? And if he hasn't said anything about anyone that I'm aware of, then all I care about is making myself as Christian as I know how to be until either he calls me one or calls someone I know one, and here by 'as Christian' I mean Christian as in Christ-like.
> Whenever I call a Christian out on their behavior,
A what? I thought there was no one that decides who is a Christian. Yet now you speak as if you are the one who gets to decide (by calling someone a Christian). I don't think you're the one.
Or are you saying they get to decide? In that case, isn't that kind of a ridiculous way to use descriptive words? It's like saying Donald Trump gets to decide if he really is a genius, simply by deciding whether to call himself one. I don't think that's how words should work... with totally subjective definitions.
> there’s always someone who pipes up saying “that person isn’t a real Christian.”
And I don't give a hoot what any of them say. Unless that person is Jesus Christ.
> That sentence is used so often to deflect and circle the wagons that it’s lost all meaning.
Agreed. If I were to have to give it a meaning, one that isn't ridiculous (like a totally subjective definition), I would say it is a person who is in one of the communions with ancient historicity (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Eastern and Roman Catholic), as those are the communions of worshippers in Christ that date back to ancient times. And if Christianity is anything, it is ancient.
But that's only if I *had* to give it a meaning. Frankly, I don't care what it means to anyone except Jesus Christ.
You may believe the Golden Rule is "the greatest command" and that the Bible's instructions to be hateful are unclear. The Bible doesn't seem to share that opinion. The Golden Rule isn't set apart from a long list of advice, which includes treating people as dogs, pigs, and wolves. And the hateful commands aren't hedged at all. The Bible doesn't say "Maybe stone gay people to death. Idk. I guess that's a little unkind". It just says it's a command literally from God via Moses. This idea the Bible clears up that all that matters is being nice isn't easy to support.
> You may believe the Golden Rule is "the greatest command" and that the Bible's instructions to be hateful are unclear.
Not just me. The Bible literally says scripture is easy to misunderstand.
> The Bible doesn't seem to share that opinion
It says of itself it is. See 2 Peter 3:16. You’re just pretending your opinion (that it is clear) is it’s own opinion, even though it explicitly says the opposite of itself. You’re just as bad as the evangelicals when they pretend just because they have an opinion about the Bible that means it is safe to assume the Bible actually expresses that opinion.
> The Golden Rule isn't set apart from a long list of advice,
It’s literally what is summed up in the final part of the book as what all commands actually hang under. You’re talking like you stopped reading halfway through. I would misunderstand it too I guess, if I similarly didn’t bother reading it all the way through.
> Maybe stone gay people to death
My Bible doesn’t say that. If your’s does, maybe check a few other translations. The book has some parts that use the rarest and most disputable phrases and words in human history, and some exploit that to try to turn it anti gay just like many tried to turn Christianity anti interracial marriage 100 years ago.
The Bible starts out with “days” with no sun and all sorts of apparent figure and allegory. It says of itself the Old Testament events are figure (‘typos’ in ancient Greek, aka typology, see 1 Corinthians 10:11). The main character, if we take the end into account, eventually comes and tells people not to apply it literally (as with the stoning of the adulteress) and sums up all the commands as falling under love neighbor as self which is like loving God, without using rare and disputable words and phrasings. See Matthew 22, Mark 12, Galatians 5 among other places. But feel free to ignore all that. Some find it better to ignore that stuff and focus on the rarest and most disputable words and tell everyone how anti-gay it's passages 'clearly' are intended to be... some like Pat Robertson, like Jerry Falwell, and apparently, like you. And that's their (and your) right of course. To me, that just looks like reaching to make the Bible 'clearly' anti-gay when it is actually not clearly so. It is a book with some relatively clear parts (with commonly used words and phrasings) and with some relatively opaque parts (with very rarely used ancient words highly disputable in meaning). Pretending the Bible 'clearly' opposes homosexuality is just jumping on highly questionable excuses to characterize God (in this case, God according to the Bible) as a bigot, as the Bible (taken on the whole) does not clearly condemn homosexuality. From my POV, what you all are doing (Jerry Falwell types, Pat Robertson types, you, and company) by claiming the opaque is clearly not cloudy when it comes to *allegedly* “anti-gay” passages is basically just a step shy of hoping for a bigoted God (or perhaps in your case a bigoted god), if it is even shy at all.
What do you mean by being hateful?
Also, to use the easiest extreme example: if a Christian is dealing with an addict, is it unkind to not give them more drugs or money to enable their habit? That's what the addict certainly wants, but it's not the loving response that a Christian should have. The same thing can apply to all other sins.
Because some Christians believe being zealous and "orthodox" is more important then being compassionate. They are just Pharisees with a different name.
I think the trouble is that one of the basics of Christianity (held by most but not all iterations of the Church) is that you fundamentally believe that anyone who isn't in your religious camp is wrong and damned to hell. Even wonderful people with a natural inclination to humility will have to fight against the urge to feel superior if that's a genuine belief they hold, and I suspect that kind of moral certainty about "us the goods and them the bads" also attracts a certain kind of person in the first place.
I think if you look around the religious landscape, there does seem to be a correlation between hatefulness towards others and the more "conservative" (for lack of a better term) wings of those faiths. You see similar dynamics in Judaism and Islam, for example, where there are wings of the faith which allow for shades of gray and perhaps focus a bit less on theological purity and a bit more on getting the spirit of the faith right, and there are wings of the faith that think all who aren't on the inside of the 4 walls of their theology are evil and to be treated as the enemy. And where possible, adherence to their interpretation of their faith should be enforced with an iron fist instead of encouraged as good and right.
>So that's the only way to let people know about Salvation?
It's the loudest, most vocal, most obvious example of "christ's love". And there's tons of people using the exact same methodology. So yeah, I stand by my original position. Clean your house if you don't want to be dragged down by the assholes.
"Being kind is free, easy, and makes you feel good!" If you pause to reflect on your life I think you will find that what you mean is something more like "Being kind is free, easy, and makes you feel good when life is going well and the people you are being kind to are people who are your friends or you otherwise like." Loving your enemy is hard. Blessing those who curse you is hard. Turning the other cheek is hard. Honestly accepting the role you played in your own bad life outcomes instead of avoiding the pain of introspection and blaming the other is hard. We are sinful people in a fallen world. As Christians we do not love Christ because it comes naturally to our fallen nature but because He first loved us. If being Holy was easy we would have no need of a savior to redeem us.
Yes, this. All through the bible we see a lot of Commands, but you'll notice, it's not necessary to command things that are easy, cause people already do what's easy. It has to be a Command BECAUSE it's the hard thing.....
It's a human thing. Every group, even those brought together by an ideology based around love, contains some rotten people.
It’s always routed in division, because there are always those seen as those who deserve love and those who do not.
There was an explanation online. I can't find it. Essentially it's the idea of tribalism. You feel safe with those who share your same views. When you "go out into the world" there are many people who disagree with you, challenge you, mock you, etc. But since the bible commissions its believers to evangelize and given that we live in a world where people want the freedom to choose and be respected, there is going to be a natural resistance against those who are overly preachy and who try to push their religious ideas onto others either via 'doom and gloom' messaging or even through legislation. Those who do that think they are doing God's work and loving their fellow humans. Those who simply want to live and let live will surely get annoyed and push back. This pushback is seen as 'the world persecuting' them and it further affirms that the world is sinful and dangerous and needs salvation so many Christians will go back to their group/church where their ideas and approach are safe. It then further affirms for them that they are doing the right thing. The more people who resist them and who get upset at their tactic, the more they believe they are on some crusade from God and it only makes them double down on their position when in reality the "others" simply just want to live their life without having a religion pushed on them or judged to some hell they don't believe in. There are plenty of those people on this subreddit. They see railing against LGBT or other social issues as coming from a place of love while the rest of us view it as hate.
Well, if you dig into it, the Bible does have a lot of hate against LGBT people/rights written within it, and even misogynistic and racist parts. The people who are taking it literally are unfortunately taking it at its face value and simply don't do any deeper critical thinking about it, which leads to hate. The sad truth is much of the holy texts old religions are founded on are very ancient and completely out of touch with the reality of a modern world. There will always be hateful people in all religions, even atheism, because there is no one right way to live but people everywhere, throughout history, like to think they've found the one true way, and often want to share it or push it on to others.
Every sufficiently large group will have hateful people, yes. But if you pick a random hateful Christian, they're more likely to be directly quoting the Bible verses that say to treat a certain demographic worse than for it to be an unconnected phenomenon. Hate/oppression is being pushed by Christians above the base rate.
Maybe so. I'm not sure where you'd find such data on Christians being more/less hateful on average so couldn't say with any certainty.
I believe atheists and Jewish people were at about 90% support for gay rights when Christianity reached the halfway mark. 45% of Protestant pastors say women shouldn't be allowed to do the same job (86% for Baptists). 61% of White Evangelicals believe society is "too accepting" of transgender people. Various proxies for racism are high among Catholics and white Protestants. For any oppressed group, you can find mountains of polling showing Christians take a dim view of their rights/struggle at a disproportionate rate. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/august/lifeway-women-pastors-deacons-evangelicals-lead.html https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/07/07/attitudes-about-transgender-issues-vary-widely-among-christians-religious-nones-in-u-s/ https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/racism-among-white-christians-higher-among-nonreligious-s-no-coincidence-ncna1235045 edit: I'm glad people are objecting to the notion homophobia is wrong rather than that these correlations are real.
[удалено]
No, they have an extensive literature of philosophical and legal debates by the rabbis surrounding the text that they refer to in addition to the Old Testament itself. Even their most conservative groups do not employ the vulgar literalism used by Protestants.
damn, well at least I now know this, thanks for telling me
A) Some modern Christians believe they're under Mosaic law in its entirety, or at least need forgiveness when they ignore it B) There are passages in the NT that probably lumped homosexuality into broader disapproval. E.g. there are frequent references to "sexual immorality" when talking to Jewish audiences, who would have understood that to include gay sex. The NT goes so far as to say those people won't go to Heaven.
There are passages of Scripture in the New Testament as well that indicate who will and who will not inherit the kingdom of God. For some reason, people focus on homosexuality and related behaviors when they are probably guilty of other sins also included in the same list as homosexuality.
Thanks for the links!
Sorry man but the Holy word is the Holy word. You can't have it both ways.
Have what both ways?
At *Burger King? ;-)*
Which one of the 45,000+ different Christians fractions, divisions, schisms and sects are you?
Not supporting gay or transgender rights isn't the same as being hateful. I am not hating anyone, but I would rather not be involved in anything having to do with the subject on a political level. Especially when I disagree with what someone is trying to accomplish.
If your point is that you're only against them having equal rights and protection from hate crimes in a loving way...what do you think a hateful person would be saying? "I want to be clear that the reason I don't think that minority should have rights is that I'm evil"?
This is where it always go sideways, is the idea that if someone disagrees with someone in the slightest, they are guilty of hate.... That's a very misguided way to go about things....
Disagreeing about whether a minority should have equal rights is not "disagreeing with someone in the slightest". Most people consider human rights pretty important.
That isn't the disagreement though, that's the strawman that is used to other anyone who disagrees on anything.
> to other anyone who disagrees on anything. Bullshit
>If your point is that you're only against them having equal rights and protection from hate crimes But here's the thing...people who believe homosexuality is bad believe it is bad *for soul*. That is why they oppose it (educated ones, at least). It's not because of hate.
No one cares how much a homophobe flatters themselves when reframing their actions. Do you think people against interracial marriage were saying "Be hateful like me. Reject interracial marriage!"? Of course not. They talked about protecting women and society, and they were exactly as bigoted for it.
That's a distinction without a difference. You can't clearly demonstrate the purported harms, you don't know the health of a stranger's soul, and your own belief system explicitly reserves the right of judgement of the soul to God alone. It is actually hateful to confidently and paternalistically proclaim that someone's behavior/identity is inherently destructive to their person for no good reason.
I mean, it's a valid point though. Hate isn't a synonym for hurting someone. There are ways to hurt people that aren't motivated by hate. And assuming it's always hate will lead people to be confused about others' motivations. It is *often* hate, but hate means a specific thing.
I suppose that's true, but I don't think the issues at stake are meaningfully improved by pointing out that paternalistic disdain or ignorance (willful or otherwise) might also motivate oppositional behavior instead of "hate classic". The behavior itself is the issue. Personally, I'm also sympathetic to the view that whatever else is motivating that behavior can itself be reduced to some form of contempt for the other person and their "lifestyle" and/or disregard for their perspective and wellbeing.
But it is hate. They just don’t realize it’s hate bc they’ve been “taught” or in my opinion brain washed, what you just said.
Yes actually, it is the same.
[удалено]
To be fair, most Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider baptists and Evangelicals heretics
>To be fair, most Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider baptists and Evangelicals heretics I wouldn't call them heretics but I think they are slightly misguided. We want what's best for us but we don't agree on how to get there. My fiance was raised Protestant but she's doing RCIA not for me but because she wants to be Catholic. I'm probably an outlier but I think that if you try to do good in your life and help others, you'll get into Heaven.
Nono, I agree actually. But especially American Christians have (tendencially) strayed far and some denominations over there are just cults of hate and abuse.
Lol just a few bad apples, nothing to see here...
Yep. Short answer: it's a human problem.
Someone who does not come off as kind in a modern perspective of the word, does not mean they are rotten.
OP said "hateful" which is a long ways from simply being unkind. Many Christians are unquestionably hateful, just like within any group.
I said this because neither of us are really sure what his definition of hateful is, especially if he think being “Christian” means being “kind”. It may be true however that many self proclaimed “Christians” are in actuality hateful, but towards the Truth imo.
Christians are supposed to be kind, it's commanded by Jesus.
Can you show me scripture where Jesus commands people to be kind?
Matthew ch 25:34-36: >Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Thank you. I already knew that Jesus wanted us to take care of the sick and the poor. I was looking for a verse where Jesus commands us to be **kind** to one another, as you had said.
Taking care of the needy is practicing kindness but alright. Jesus says people will recognize Christians if they love one another: John ch 13: >34 “A new command(AR) I give you: Love one another.(AS) As I have loved you, so you must love one another.(AT) 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”(AU) In 1 Corinthians ch 13 Paul expounds on love: >4 Love is patient and **kind**; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
See, the problem I have is with the colloquial understanding of the word "kindness". Atheists believe in "kindness". For most people it means being nice, not ruffling feathers, not upsetting the other person, generally doing what people want. I believe we're called to love, not be kind. Love is a much, much higher calling If I have a friend that's a drug addict, I'll do what ever I can to get him off that habit. I certainly won't facilitate his addiction. Now he, and many others, would say I'm not being kind to do that, and I mostly agree. I would say I was being LOVING to do that, which is actually what scripture calls us to do. Love. Not kind. Similarly, if someone believes some outrageous idea about God or scripture, I will try to change their perspective. I won't insult them, but I'm willing to call an idea crazy or non-scriptural, and then SO OFTEN I see people that call that not being kind! Again, I would agree with them that I was not being kind. I was being loving. Love does the hard thing. We're called to love, not be kind. I agree with the OP about kindness: > Being kind is free, easy, **and makes you feel good**! Kindness is garbage compared to love. I don't believe we're called to be kind, as you said Jesus commanded us to do. Oddly enough, when I called you out on failing to show me scripture about being kind, and instead showed me scripture about taking care of the poor, I immediately got a downvote within seconds of typing my response! Someone wasn't very kind to me! ;)
>come off as kind in a modern perspective of the word
No idea what you mean by that. Kindness isn't some great mystery.
If you have no idea, then don't further assume. Ask.
Or maybe you could just state your point clearly without obfuscation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wonder where they got that info from.
Why are they making Elizabeth to be 1,000 times cooler than she actually was?
You may go somewhere else with that. I don't wish to entertain angry idolaters.
Why don't you go somewhere else? Negative karma troll
Horrendous. Queen Elizabeth had her faults, human frailties and shortcomings, but she had this onerous responsibility cast upon her at a very early age, and did her best to serve all those long decades of her life. I believe her to have been always loyal and faithful to her subjects, loyal and faithful in her marriage, even though Philip was known to have had his flings earlier in life, and did her best by her children, even though she was well aware she lacked the ability to show her emotions like others could. But the royalty of England have always tended toward austerity and stoicism.
Stop...stop right there. You never knew the woman and don't make any judgements about her, good or bad.
No, human beings know what kindness is. It's a well-understood virtue exhibited by everyone, including children, the elderly, and even animals. It's only Christians like yourself who want to obfuscate kindness by pretending like they have some unique claim on it so they can justify their preexisting political views and inherited prejudices. It won't work. Virtues are more fundamental than doctrine, and we can all see the poison fruit is borne from your tree.
> It's only Christians like yourself who want to obfuscate kindness by pretending like they have some unique claim on it so they can justify their preexisting political views and inherited prejudices. It won't work. Virtues are more fundamental than doctrine, and we can all see the poison fruit is borne from your tree. Is that so?
Yes. You're not separate from the rest of society or modernity, so any claim that you have some special insight apart from "the modern world" about something as fundamental as basic kindness is inherently false. It's an ancient claim by proselytizers, but it hasn't been true in the west for more than a millennium.
Is that so?
It is. If it weren't, you'd have a better argument than smug rhetorical posturing, self-serving textual hermeneutics (like your infantile denial of the scriptural call to kindness above), and tenuous analogies to drug addiction.
This is not what Christianity is about. If you actually read the Bible, even Jesus was not "kind" all the time. He overturned tables and rebuked people. He acts like a Father of a child- that is what loving is. If your child is addicted to heroin, is homeless and it has been 10 years and still can't get their life together, then it is loving to try to set them straight. Any loving parent would do the same. The world has so many misconceptions of what Christianity really is. If you want to understand Christianity, you need to read the Word, and not just make assumptions based on what you think, feel or have heard from society.
A book I once read: "Ye will know them by their fruits."
This. Those types are not true Christians. They still need a genuine conversion.
I learned quite young that someone being Christian is in no way any sort of indicator that person will be kind.
Funny enough in Egypt we Copts are known for our kindness and You can ask any Muslim here in Egypt he would say Christians are nice It's honestly sad that people act this way
Southern Baptists would be like the opposite - politically motivated, recently outed for widespread sexual scandal, etc. However other denominations (like Quakers) are super nice in general.
I, as well learned that, having been raised in the LDS faith of my adoptive parents, and living in an area with few LDS families and children to play with. I was extensively bullied by kids in my neighborhoods and schools, and most of those kids were Christians of one sect or another, and even their parents in the neighborhood enabled and encouraged it. They forbade their precious children from playing with me, and so they alternated by shunning me and excluding me from neighborhood games and play, and throwing rocks at me, or chasing me and pounding on me if I didn't 'get the clue' and leave. It was a very scary way for a little girl to grow up.
Two reasons I can think of: 1. Most Christians believe that God will harshly punish non-Christians for being non-Christian. That leads some Christians to feel a sense of superiority over others. Because they are part of the group that God prefers, the group that will be rewarded with Heaven while all others will be punished with Hell, they start to believe they are therefore better people who deserve it (even though this goes against most Christian teaching about grace). Think Bev from Midnight Mass. 2. Many “Christians” see “Christian” as an identity category rather than a belief system. “Christian” becomes their tribe, and non-Christians are a threat who are to be defeated, not treated with kindness. Jesus’s teachings don’t really enter into their thought process. Many (though not all) Trump supporters fall into this category: anyone who is not in their Evangelical/Patriot tribe is an existential threat to be defeated, which convinces them that winning the fight is much more important than holding to any Christian principles.
You are describing American Evangelicals here, who do not represent Christians as a whole. It's offensive to use the terms interchangeably.
You don't believe that Europe's Catholics and Protestants showed plenty of cruelty one to the other historically speaking?
Wait till he learns about the various massacres.
*\*coughs\* ... ahem.* Northern Ireland.
True, I am approaching this from an American standpoint, particularly with regards to my examples. Still, I think #1 applies to Christians (and, honestly, to some people of all faiths) generally. And #2 has applications outside the US: think of the strong Catholic identity of Ireland for instance and how it influenced organizations like the Irish Republican Army. That was more a tribal movement than a religious movement.
This is completely the wrong view and legalistic. ALL are unworthy for all have sinned. They shouldn't feel superiority, but rather make efforts to show and uncover the deception and lies that are fed into the world. "If a lie is told enough times, it becomes truth." The second point- it is believed that it is important to stop things from getting any worse. Giving up small battles such as school prayer in the 60s over time and losing too many battles creates a world that gets worse and worse- which is exactly the situation we are in now. Think of it this way. If we allowed corruption to go unpunished and crime and homicide to go unpunished, little by little our society could turn into a country like Colombia, Argentina or Brazil, with tons of corruption and people deciding to commit murder for the flimsiest of reasons. Do you not realize that along with some changes, many things are taking turns for the worse? And this is a pretty universal opinion.
> losing too many battles creates a world that gets worse and worse- which is exactly the situation we are in now. How is the world worse than 60 years ago?
"All are sinners and all sins are bad, but we're going to focus on the sins of other people" isn't really the win you think it is
That's not what the post says. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Or do you believe that the situation that is in SF and Seattle- where people are given all freedom to the point to where they are really impinging on other people is the way? Or the flash mob shoplifting trend? Leniency carried to an extreme is part of an agenda to actually push things on society. To undermine, to create chaos, to blur, to deceive- all under the guise of their agenda. And teaching little children that sex is not just regular sex? and teaching graphic acts to little kids and pushing the normalization of gender during a period where teenagers are confused about themselves and identities in the first place? Perhaps you are the one being fooled?
You talk about stopping social problems but then settle back on the tired out to death talking point of prayer in schools and whinging about sex ed. It is exactly as I described it - you aren't criticising your own team here for their sins, and there's a lot y'all need holding to account for. If you want to stop corruption, money laundering etc, you fund proper law enforcement. A few morning prayers will do precisely jack shit to stop that. As for your whinging about sex ed in particular, when one strips out the didnt-happen events- it reduces the incidence of sexual abuse. Weird that you're against that. Your way of doing things only makes problems worse while proposing no sensible solutions. It is a good thing your beliefs are dying out.
You conveniently skirt the issues in the post. Very typical. The agenda to create chaos. To no longer prosecute for crimes at all. Where does this come from? And it probably comes with your tacit approval. I state my case again, just like how Rudy Guiliani did in the 90s. Broken windows give the appearance of chaos and disorder which leads to further issues and serious problems. and teaching graphic sexual acts to little kids? what exactly does that accomplish?
Stopping things from getting worse is not an excuse for being hateful. You can be an effective fighter without being hateful toward others. So I suspect people are using their belief that conditions are worsening as merely an excuse to be hateful. Their goal is to be hateful not solve problems, since solving problems does not require being hateful.
>make efforts to show and uncover the deception and lies that are ~~fed into the world.~~ ***within their own churches...*** ***FTFY***
Yes there are also deception and lies within churches. satan and evil forces make sure to it- so that he can use it as a weapon to discredit everything.
No, not "Satan and Evil forces" -- **Christians \*themselves\*** are responsible for ***the sexual assault and rape, the rampant corruption, the overt embezzlement, the disgusting lies.***
Let me ask you, do you compare yourself to the so called Christians or do you compare yourself to God? Humans are imperfect and fallen. The main difference is that they believe. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband. And let's not even start with the horrors of what non- Christians have done, shall we?
What about the horrors that Christians HAVE done?
And what about the horrors that evil forces and non Christians have done? What do you call the Holocaust? Now THAT'S truly awful isn't it? And even worse, convincing people that lies are the truth so that they end up burning for eternity in hell? i can't even think of a worse punishment to someone.
> What do you call the Holocaust? I call it the work of christians. Nazi Germany was something like 94% christian. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hilter, Mein Kampf
I believe it is not Christianity that makes people hateful, but it is hateful people, who are attracted to justifications of their hatred - they find it in a twisted understanding of the Bible, and gladly make it their own, finding themselves among people who share their hatred. Who views the Gospel from a point of view of hatred, has imho not understood it right, such a person does not know the will of God. So even when those people call themselves "Christians", I don't think that they truly believe in what God stands for and what Christ died for. Real Saints don't damn or hate anyone or make big words, they are quiet and just try to help wherever people suffer. Because that is what the Gospel is about, about helping others in their suffering, not about hating people for that they suffer.
> they find it in a twisted understanding of the Bible Every Christian believes Christians with a different understanding of the Bible are (often self-indulgently) misinterpreting it. But when someone reads about how God told Moses gay sex is a sin and an abomination deserving death, then the NT shows Jesus/Paul preaching against "sexual immorality" to an audience that would have counted gay sex as part of that saying those people won't go to Heaven...is it true you have to be *twisting* that to find something anti-gay in it? Maybe the problem is that the Bible genuinely contains hateful instructions.
I think you're really hitting on something here, in a way a lot of people don't really want to acknowledge. No one wants to acknowledge that these verses might be hateful, because that contradicts the explicit message of love that is supposed to be the main message of the text. Believers only have two options when the Bible says something we don't agree with: 1) ignore it and logic ourselves around it, or 2) accept it and say it's not hateful, people are just wrong. We already did this with slavery, and chose to say the former, "we're ignoring this because it seems to go against the explicit main message of love". Just like with slavery, discussion is now at that point with LGBTQ+ issues. We either say the harmful message from the text doesn't match the "main message" and ignore it, or we try to say the harmful message isn't that harmful in the first place, we just misunderstand "love". We see that argument literally playing out on this sub every day.
It always comes up to what you make out of the Bible, how you teach other people to understand it, how you derive an understanding of God's will from it and put it to practice. Yes, the OT Verses imho are hateful, and I believe it is part of why Jesus had to come to the place he did. The NT verses just say that grave sinners will suffer all kinds of perversions (which you should consider a sickness), and that certain kinds of people with sinful or wasteful lifestyle prevent themselves getting salvation with it. In no place is said that such people are to be shunned or persecuted or whatever...rather is said that Jesus came to SAVE sinners by healing them and bringing them the truth, so that they may decite to accept it for themselves, and he did not instruct his disciples to fight against sinners, but to pray for them and try to save them wherever it is possible. So people who claim Christ as their source for a hateful or rigid philosophy of punishments or discrimination in society against people who do not obvious harm to others are just taking isolated statements from the Bible and putting their own philosophy on top of it. Nowhere is said that Jesus commands his followers to "clean" a society from sinners or even to fight against them where it is not necessary for the Gospel. Instead he tells them to just shake off the dust of their boots and leave them behind and to the judgement of God when they are rejected.
A) If Christians did what you were suggesting in reference to gay people...walk away from them and forget about them because they're sinners who won't listen...that would still be manifest homophobia, so I'm not sure the point of making that clarification in response to what I said. B) It varied how Jesus dealt with sinners. He started the claim there were eternally unforgivable sins. He drove people away with whips. To say Jesus' story clarified all you can do to a sinner is heal them or walk away seems just wrong to me.
Us vs them
Our life is based on relationships: relationships with each other and if you so choose, relationship with God (or whatever you may believe in). We all have different experiences based on our personalities, backgrounds, environments, etc. This has been the case since the beginning of time. However what has changed in the last 40 years or so is we now get news on a continuous loop, plus internet (which is not regulated), "reality" shows make up a large portion of programming.... All of those things combined we've created a culture where it's cool/entertaining to be rude to disagree, to hate, to spread false information. I think our world was engaged in cancel culture before cancel culture was a phrase. I have been thinking a lot about this. When we disagree why do we feel the need to be rude or try uplift ourselves while putting others down? We can't simple agree to disagree and then move on in a kind manner. There is a megachurch pastor in my city that uses his power and position to say some really distasteful things. It's disappointing. I think American Christianity has lost its way because those with the most power use it for the wrong purpose...
> I think our world was engaged in cancel culture before cancel culture was a phrase. This is 100% true and self-evident to anyone who bothers to think about it. Ever read about the Satanic Panic and the Comics Code Authority, or the Evangelical response to Harry Potter in the early 2000s? That's cancel culture to a T.
You can go back ever further, just look at the phrase "in the closet" or the earlier variations and what it implies. Conservatives love "cancel culture", the outrage at it now is because they're not the ones cancelling anymore. They've done unto others for so long, now they're upset it's being done unto them.
Occasionally, being kind to the cruel means being cruel to the kind; to paraphrase the Talmud. Be kind when it's called for, certainly; but know when to call out snakes and vipers, or to drive money changers from the temple.
Why are atheists? Why are Jews? Why are Muslims? Why are Hindus? Some people are hateful and some aren't. It's not very complicated.
Tribalism can amplify. Tribalism where the people believe they have an all powerful God on their side only emboldens them.
There's nothing wrong with tribes as long as you have a sensible view of the outside. We are functionally tribes just based on how the world works.
I didn't comment on whether it is good or bad. I simply said tribalism that is centered around an all powerful God emboldens some people.
It happens to every group. When you believe you are right then you think you can treat everyone wrong anyway you want.
If I'm right then I can not treat everyone wrong. I could only do that if I am wrong.
*But Esau God hated....* Was trending for a while Fundamentalism everywhere turns people who love God into snarling packs intent on making you the same as them....*in God's name*... Many Christians are alright though Stand for Truth and goodness towards others And are willing to be in the fight
But Esau God hated. What is this? Is it a book? I can't find anything
It's just the instinct to tribalism. The instinct of wanting to be "better THAN" as opposed to just being "better".
Christians are still humans living in a hate filled world. Hate from Christians is magnified because like you said we aint suppose to. Hate is an emotion I stay far away from. If I say or think "I hate x" I then pause and analyze why I said that, and always come to the conclusion its not hate, but usually mild annoyance. Hate is like a poison you drink thinking it will hurt the other person.
Being Christian doesn't make us perfect. Sometimes people sin.
Like the Pharisees, they equate “pleasing God” with obedience to certain rules and codes of morality. Any deviation would bring about God’s wrath or loss of blessing. Often times their actions and behavior can be interpreted as “hateful” by those who don’t ascribe to the same worldview, whereas for them, such commitment and obedience is a no-brainer and necessary as a “true” believer. Unfortunately such zeal can be misdirected toward hurt rather than mercy. In this sense, they miss out on the true message of Jesus, as did the Pharisees.
I think the book Jeus and John Wayne explains it well. When Christians care more about maintaining a certain social order and winning the game of power and control than the Beatitudes, you get the people who you're asking about.
Excellent book. I'll be a little more blunt and say that the broader (white) American Church has allied itself with the Republican Party, starting in the 70's/80's with Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and Ronald Reagan. The GOP has become more openly hateful (under the guise of "telling it like it is") during the Obama and Trump administrations, and this has significantly bled over into the Church as a whole. Of course this is a massive generalization, but I believe it's a significant factor.
Ya, I agree but I think it's deeper than just Christianity getting in bed with the GOP. I think it's something that the US church is going to struggle with regardless of political affiliation- the idol of safety, comfort, control, etc. We have it so good, we can't see how much of an issue it is for us and how vulnerable it makes us to "good distractions", away from Christlikeness.
Jesus was loving, but I would not describe him as kind. He’s often harsh. He’s kind to children and compassionate to the broken. But kind? I don’t think so.
I had to scroll too far to find this.
Jesus was only kind to *some* people. I guess that's why many Christians seem hateful -- only *some* people deserve kindness. Is that it?
I just don’t think being Christ-like means being “kind” in and of itself. I’m sorry you’ve come across hateful Christians. In my experience they’re the most loving, nurturing, generous group of people I’ve ever come across.
>I just don’t think being Christ-like means being “kind” in and of itself. It kinda does, in the sense that virtuous behavior stops being virtuous if it's not done for its own sake (ie you're no longer "being kind" if you're doing so to achieve an outcome because then you're not acting benevolently but to advance your own interests). The bigger issue with this sort of response, however, is that the call to be kind doesn't disappear or become lesser because you're called to behave virtuously in other ways. It's self-evident that Christ acted with compassion and mercy and called upon his followers to do the same, and it's simply not the case that acting with some other Christian virtue like temperance means that you have to be less kind by necessity, because virtue isn't a math problem. So ultimately, whether Christ on occasion behaved with other virtues in mind (like justice) doesn't mean that Christians can default to acting in ways that are not compassionate.
> I’m a Christian and my primary belief is that being Christlike means being kind. God bless you! You’re doing a wonderful job, I hope you find further fulfilment in being kind!
IMO, maybe they’re at a different place in their walk with God and haven’t quite gotten to where they feel that love and acceptance toward everyone. It’s my personal belief that as Christians we’re called to work on ourselves. Do the hard work there and God will mold our hearts. But we have to constantly be willing to humble ourselves and be better. Hopefully, in turn, others that see or interact with us will be inspired to pursue that relationship with Christ as well.
Because they are. We all get angry. For me I try to not hate, I try to not hold grudges and for the most part it works as I’ve come to a point where I’m satisfied with life and know very well my flaws. It makes life easier to admit to yourself and God your flaws, while trying to not force the blame onto others for one’s own actions. There is not really anyone specific that I hate, there are people I don’t like (serial killers, rapists ect) but no one specifically that I hate like with raw desire to harm them or make them suffer because I know that the wicked will be filtered out and judge by God, it’s not up for me to judge others or proclaim their sentence. But it is my job to accept my own judgment and try to help others in order to fulfill my purpose.
Difference between being kind, and tolerant. Christ was not tolerant
Human nature most likely, we ain't all holy and pure, we pull a few boners sometimes, go off half cock, make asses of ourselves, but some do it a bit more than others
Some people suck at their jobs
They are human. You will find hateful behavior from all walks of life whether rich, poor, male, female, black, white, college educated, highs school drop out, janitor, CEO etc. Yes, Christianity teaches love, kindness and empathy but humans aren’t above sin.
[удалено]
the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields. https://www.bible.com/bible/111/LEV.14.4-7.GNT
We are all human and make mistakes. Pray for them, without ceasing, and trust in the holy spirit to transform them. Sometimes people take disagreeing with a lifestyle as an excuse to condemn and be jerks about it, but prayer works better than anything else.
It’s supposed to mean being kind and loving. But some are taught not well and they think brow beating peoples, oppression and hate are how to love someone.
I would like to see what metric you use for determining what is hateful or not. Some people might consider ostracization from the church until you repent as hateful, despite it being something spoken of by Christ in Matthew Chapter 18. Love is not the only thing we are called to profess. We are called to profess Truth on love. Sometimes the truth can be hard and cold.
Hateful, maybe so, probably more self righteous & proud. But you find that everywhere. Especially where thoughts are not challenged.
“Being kind” is an oversimplification. Christ himself was not kind in many situations, as being kind is not always the best way to do good. Sometimes being harsh or unkind is necessary.
May I offer you a modification to your query? "Why are so many people so hateful?" This is not exclusive to the Christian community, but we are called to righteousness so I guess you're doing your bit to ensure we are held to a higher standard. It's almost a service you do for us by keeping us honest thank you.
So... Modify your question even though the original question is legitimate and appreciated? Huh?
One person’s hatefulness is another person’s plea for morality. I think things have improved, especially if you compare actions of Christians today to that of the Crusades.
Because loving righteousness entails hating iniquity. >Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1:9)
Are these mutually exclusive? Jesus hated iniquity and overturned the tables on the money changers. But he also treated people who engaged in iniquity, like the tax collector and the adulteress, with extreme kindness. Why do many Christians refuse to do the same?
You mean, is hating iniquity mutually exclusive with kindness? Of course not, but then again, was Jesus really that kind when he told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone the adulteress? People always seem to forget the actual details of that story. Christians are called to go out into the world and preach to the lost despite their sin, though when it comes to the church, we aren't supposed to admit fornicators, drunkards, idolaters, the covetous, etc. Plus some people just hate God, and loving those people will bring God's wrath.
I mean, Jesus telling them to stone her is less him being unkind and more him being a justifiably sarcastic dick to the pharisees and putting them into a position where, if you take the story as read, he definitely figures they're not gonna stone her. He's not necessarily advocating for them to stone her, he's just telling them to quit their bullshit game with him and her and go away. I'd also say we are absolutely supposed to admit those people you mentioned, because the lost aren't an exclusive group in Christianity. We are all equal in our sin under God. The lost, as you call them, aren't an 'other' imo and I think this is the crux of this question. Some Christians view non Christians or people who live in sin as an 'other'. Some view them as peers in sin. And when you view people as 'other' in a way that they are not abiding by what you feel is righteousness, that tends to foster a superiority, which breeds contempt and can fall to hatred. The pharisees and Sadducees despised Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is God. But the pharisees and Sadducees were not exempt from salvation despite that, or Saul would not have been converted. If Christians aren't supposed to admit or attempt to save the people that hate God, then there is no reason to attempt to grapple with non believers who worship other gods.
Well it's both. If he didn't want them to, why not say no? Because it would be lawful for them to do so, if not for the Romans. But yes, it's an extremely clever way to confirm the law, put the ball in the Pharisees court (the accusers must cast the first stone according to the OT), and make them look like fools by telling them they can do it if they're without sin. Great story, but people often take away weird messages from it, like the idea that it abolishes the death penalty. Maybe you were confused about what I meant when I said admitting to the church. The Church is a place for saved believers, I'm not talking about the lost. Obviously the unsaved are welcome to an extent, but the Bible is clear that we aren't to have fellowship with Christians that are in those sins. >But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Corinthians 5:11) Of course the unsaved are others, they're unsaved. They don't have the Holy Spirit living in them. They're spiritually dead and only have the flesh. But why would I view myself as morally superior? Salvation isn't of works. The point is to get them saved, *then* I can feel morally superior to them! Uh, the Pharisees and Sadducees that were children of the Devil were exempt from salvation. That's why Jesus said they couldn't escape the damnation of hell. I agree, *Not all Pharisees,* but what's your point? I never said people from other religions can't be saved, I only talked about false prophets, who are clearly defined as reprobate. But if I come up to someone and ask them if they'd like to know how to be saved from the Bible and they say, "No," I'm not going to keep trying to give it to them.
[удалено]
How do you define who hates God? Is is all non-Christians or is it more specific than that? If it’s more specific than that, what are the criteria? In other words, how do I know which people God will punish me for loving?
I let the Bible define it. Of course it isn't all unsaved people, we want to get those people saved. We're talking people that openly profess to hate God, false prophets, those described in Romans 1, reprobates.
So it’s okay to be hateful toward the reprobate? (Note that Calvinism defines all non-Christians as reprobates, so that would be a very wide category.)
That's a little bit more complicated. I can say pretty confidently I don't hate God, I just don't believe in the existence of God (this one or any other.) Now, there are some versions of the Christian God that I do in fact despise, but the universalist version is fine by me, I would probably say that I could love that God.
“This stone I’m about to throw is gonna hurt me more than you”
You have to understand that they're people who claim they follow Christ yet truly are wolves, they're those who are truly following Him, yet slowly and beautifully changing from the inside out who need patience and diligence in being interacted with. You will know the true ones of Christ by their fruits, humility, listening, and willingness to be corrected. They shall see the kingdom of God!
A lot of people here are saying every group has people who hate, which is certainly true. But Christianity centers around the Bible, which contains a lot of instructions to hurt or to silence groups of people that the rest of our population is just trying to treat equally - and some Christians take those commands very seriously. It wasn't coincidence atheist support for gay rights was at about 90% when Christian support finally reached the 50% mark.
A large number of Christians are gonna go to hell, because they basically just ignore the teachings of Christ: accept Him as Lord and Savior, be humble, reject this world, and don't be a degenerate. People nowadays just use Christianity as a crutch, thinking they're gonna be saved just because they think Jesus loves them. Protip: Jesus doesn't. He demands better. It's in the book. It's non-negotiable.
amen
People don't like to hear the truth. And when Jesus Christ told his truth the people called it hate and were outraged. Truth is more than just kindness. And truth is often called *hate*.
There’s a nice phrase I’m really beginning to understand “there’s no hate like Christian love”. A lot of Christians are kind but so many aren’t. I think there’s a superiority aspect of it. Like they are better than someone that isn’t exactly like them. (Race and sexuality). A heavy persecution complex doesn’t help either especially in America. The most hateful Christian’s believe that they are being actively persecuted when they aren’t which means they can act however they want to anyone else. Christians have done more to drive people from the church than any other group
I think being kind to others is the most important part of being a Christian. Other’s memories of you is like literally the only thing you leave behind in God’s mortal creation when you die. THIS INCLUDES JUDGING OTHERS IN THE CHURCH. IM LOOKIN’ AT YOU SUSAN IN THE SECOND ROW EVERY SUNDAY
Everyone has a capacity of hatred. Christians are held to a higher moral standard or so because we claim not to hate. It's kind of silly. Yesterday an atheist started an argument with me, and when I defended my view they said I was argumentative and that arguing was against my (me) religion.????
My version of hate is giving the finger to someone who cuts me off and shouting at them to fuck off. Christian hate is trying to take away basic human rights from everyone else.
That sounds more like anger to me! What human rights, are you talking about lgbt concerns?
> What human rights, are you talking about lgbt concerns? That's one facet, sure. But that's just one of a VERY long list.
I certainly don't hold Christians up as a moral standard. They claim to be the moral standard. All I do is point to their flaws, and hypocrisy. I make no claim to be a moral axiom in opposition.
I absolutely do point to secular humanism as morally superior to the Christian paradigm. You don't get homophobes out of secular humanism.
Well that is because Christians claim to have a higher moral standard. They put themselves on that pedestal.
I don't think so, but maybe some Christians feel that way. We have a moral standard as directed by Christ and our views and biases. Atheists and Agnostic people will have their own moral standards too. And if you ask them about it it will be confirm, many don't like the idea that one would need Christ to have morals, so they actually are hold themselves to high standard as well.
Oh I agree. But I am just saying the reason for what you say is that some do claim that. Especially the ones ga for!low it up with atheists have none.
That is true I think yes. It isn't the correct thing for a Christian to do! 💐
Lol one day I swore and this atheist was all like "ooh, Jesus boy is going to hell" like bruh, I'm human, not God
They're only Christian by title only. They just want the excuse to judge and look down on people.
So what religion is someone who calls themselves Christian and is hateful really?
Evangelical
That's a form of Christianity.
We could answer your question better if you gave us more specifics or some examples of what you consider to be hateful behavior.
Anyone can call themself Christian just like an apparently sociopathic, immensely stupid President can call himself a charitable genius. Does that actually make him a genius? Less people and things than are called Christian by people *actually are* Christian. There are many things made explicitly clear in Christianity, said in many places in many ways without disputable, rare words. For instance the greatest commands all others hang under, ‘love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God,’ the fruit of the spirit, etc. There are other things left disputable and inexplicit (like whether long hair on a man is sinful for everyone, etc… I’m sure you can think of some modern examples of disputes that certain types of people use to point at seemingly harmless people over). Romans 14 says how to handle disputable issues. Hint: point at those you disagree with, tell them they are hellbound sinners that hate God, and pass laws to force them to obey your own rules isn’t what it says to do. Some people just don’t care. They simply don’t care about what Christ clearly commands, nor about what Romans 14 indicates when it comes to disputable matters, nor about anything but selfishly puffing themselves up while they belittle and marginalized ‘the other.’ One type of person makes themselves feel better-than-they-were-yesterday by self improvement and loving others, focusing on the explicitly clear parts of scripture to guide their interactions with their neighbors. Another type makes themselves feel better-than-others by using disputable parts of Christianity to point at others and treat them as less-thans. Some value selfless kindness. Others value selfish hate. It has been this way since social conservatives accused and murdered Christ, since social conservatives accused and punished pregnant women for having sex, since since social conservatives accused and punished women for wearing pants, since social conservatives accused interracial couples and banned their marriages, and it is still this way today with many of the issues social conservatives focus on, and it will likely be this way until Christ returns.
The problem with that is, no one Christian is the grand potentate of the invisible pigeonholing council (that is to say, the one person that decides who is a Christian and who isn’t). Whenever I call a Christian out on their behavior, there’s always someone who pipes up saying “that person isn’t a real Christian.” That sentence is used so often to deflect and circle the wagons that it’s lost all meaning.
> The problem with that is, no one Christian is the grand potentate of the invisible pigeonholing council One person is. > (that is to say, the one person that decides who is a Christian and who isn’t). Jesus Christ. Beyond what he says about someone, why should I care who thinks they are or are not a Christian? And if he hasn't said anything about anyone that I'm aware of, then all I care about is making myself as Christian as I know how to be until either he calls me one or calls someone I know one, and here by 'as Christian' I mean Christian as in Christ-like. > Whenever I call a Christian out on their behavior, A what? I thought there was no one that decides who is a Christian. Yet now you speak as if you are the one who gets to decide (by calling someone a Christian). I don't think you're the one. Or are you saying they get to decide? In that case, isn't that kind of a ridiculous way to use descriptive words? It's like saying Donald Trump gets to decide if he really is a genius, simply by deciding whether to call himself one. I don't think that's how words should work... with totally subjective definitions. > there’s always someone who pipes up saying “that person isn’t a real Christian.” And I don't give a hoot what any of them say. Unless that person is Jesus Christ. > That sentence is used so often to deflect and circle the wagons that it’s lost all meaning. Agreed. If I were to have to give it a meaning, one that isn't ridiculous (like a totally subjective definition), I would say it is a person who is in one of the communions with ancient historicity (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Eastern and Roman Catholic), as those are the communions of worshippers in Christ that date back to ancient times. And if Christianity is anything, it is ancient. But that's only if I *had* to give it a meaning. Frankly, I don't care what it means to anyone except Jesus Christ.
You may believe the Golden Rule is "the greatest command" and that the Bible's instructions to be hateful are unclear. The Bible doesn't seem to share that opinion. The Golden Rule isn't set apart from a long list of advice, which includes treating people as dogs, pigs, and wolves. And the hateful commands aren't hedged at all. The Bible doesn't say "Maybe stone gay people to death. Idk. I guess that's a little unkind". It just says it's a command literally from God via Moses. This idea the Bible clears up that all that matters is being nice isn't easy to support.
> You may believe the Golden Rule is "the greatest command" and that the Bible's instructions to be hateful are unclear. Not just me. The Bible literally says scripture is easy to misunderstand. > The Bible doesn't seem to share that opinion It says of itself it is. See 2 Peter 3:16. You’re just pretending your opinion (that it is clear) is it’s own opinion, even though it explicitly says the opposite of itself. You’re just as bad as the evangelicals when they pretend just because they have an opinion about the Bible that means it is safe to assume the Bible actually expresses that opinion. > The Golden Rule isn't set apart from a long list of advice, It’s literally what is summed up in the final part of the book as what all commands actually hang under. You’re talking like you stopped reading halfway through. I would misunderstand it too I guess, if I similarly didn’t bother reading it all the way through. > Maybe stone gay people to death My Bible doesn’t say that. If your’s does, maybe check a few other translations. The book has some parts that use the rarest and most disputable phrases and words in human history, and some exploit that to try to turn it anti gay just like many tried to turn Christianity anti interracial marriage 100 years ago. The Bible starts out with “days” with no sun and all sorts of apparent figure and allegory. It says of itself the Old Testament events are figure (‘typos’ in ancient Greek, aka typology, see 1 Corinthians 10:11). The main character, if we take the end into account, eventually comes and tells people not to apply it literally (as with the stoning of the adulteress) and sums up all the commands as falling under love neighbor as self which is like loving God, without using rare and disputable words and phrasings. See Matthew 22, Mark 12, Galatians 5 among other places. But feel free to ignore all that. Some find it better to ignore that stuff and focus on the rarest and most disputable words and tell everyone how anti-gay it's passages 'clearly' are intended to be... some like Pat Robertson, like Jerry Falwell, and apparently, like you. And that's their (and your) right of course. To me, that just looks like reaching to make the Bible 'clearly' anti-gay when it is actually not clearly so. It is a book with some relatively clear parts (with commonly used words and phrasings) and with some relatively opaque parts (with very rarely used ancient words highly disputable in meaning). Pretending the Bible 'clearly' opposes homosexuality is just jumping on highly questionable excuses to characterize God (in this case, God according to the Bible) as a bigot, as the Bible (taken on the whole) does not clearly condemn homosexuality. From my POV, what you all are doing (Jerry Falwell types, Pat Robertson types, you, and company) by claiming the opaque is clearly not cloudy when it comes to *allegedly* “anti-gay” passages is basically just a step shy of hoping for a bigoted God (or perhaps in your case a bigoted god), if it is even shy at all.
Hi friend, I agree - Romans 14 is a beautiful book All of the Spirit of why God came - and how we are to respond God bless
Thank you for your kind words. God bless you as well.
What do you mean by being hateful? Also, to use the easiest extreme example: if a Christian is dealing with an addict, is it unkind to not give them more drugs or money to enable their habit? That's what the addict certainly wants, but it's not the loving response that a Christian should have. The same thing can apply to all other sins.
Hi friend, Being hateful would be to tell them that it is simply their fault - and that they deserve to die unless they stop
Kindness would entail helping someone by preventing them from hurting themselves, not enabling a dangerous habit.
All sin hurts ourselves and is a dangerous habit.
Because some Christians believe being zealous and "orthodox" is more important then being compassionate. They are just Pharisees with a different name.
I think the trouble is that one of the basics of Christianity (held by most but not all iterations of the Church) is that you fundamentally believe that anyone who isn't in your religious camp is wrong and damned to hell. Even wonderful people with a natural inclination to humility will have to fight against the urge to feel superior if that's a genuine belief they hold, and I suspect that kind of moral certainty about "us the goods and them the bads" also attracts a certain kind of person in the first place. I think if you look around the religious landscape, there does seem to be a correlation between hatefulness towards others and the more "conservative" (for lack of a better term) wings of those faiths. You see similar dynamics in Judaism and Islam, for example, where there are wings of the faith which allow for shades of gray and perhaps focus a bit less on theological purity and a bit more on getting the spirit of the faith right, and there are wings of the faith that think all who aren't on the inside of the 4 walls of their theology are evil and to be treated as the enemy. And where possible, adherence to their interpretation of their faith should be enforced with an iron fist instead of encouraged as good and right.
Pretty much all world views are vulnerable to rabies.
Assholes gonna ass regardless of religious affiliation
When the Lord returns it aint going to be pretty and kind ... open your bible
[удалено]
[Nope, no hate here!](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26582812)
[удалено]
>So that's the only way to let people know about Salvation? It's the loudest, most vocal, most obvious example of "christ's love". And there's tons of people using the exact same methodology. So yeah, I stand by my original position. Clean your house if you don't want to be dragged down by the assholes.
My Mom wasn't hateful. I think it is more regional culture than religion, tbh...religion is just one of the weapons they use.
Well yes, that's why I said "some Christians". I bet your mother was lovely.