Luke 6:22-23: Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

[boatsnguitars]

Luke 6:22-23:

“Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”

The verse makes it clear that Christians will be hated and excluded because they will be associated with Evil - because of Jesus.

Christians might say, "Yes, associated with Evil, but we're the good guys!" But, Jesus must have known his ideas were hateful. He must have known he was preaching hate, or why think his followers would be hated?

Let's see why Christians are considered Evil.
Biblical Teachings:
Interpretations of certain biblical passages, contribute to perceptions of exclusivity and judgmental attitudes, leading to vilification.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Homosexuality):
These passages contain prohibitions against homosexual behavior and are often cited in discussions about LGBTQ+ rights. Some verses that contribute to discrimination and exclusion:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (Women's Roles):
This passage addresses the role of women in the church and has been a source of controversy, with debates over whether it supports or restricts women's leadership roles within religious institutions.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Rape and Marriage):
Critics may point to this passage as problematic due to its prescription for a rapist to marry their victim, raising ethical concerns about the treatment of survivors and the endorsement of such practices.

Psalm 137:9 ("Babylonian Babies" verse):
This verse, which speaks of dashing Babylonian infants against rocks, is sometimes cited to highlight the apparent brutality in certain Old Testament passages, leading to questions about the morality of such narratives.

Exodus 21:20-21 (Treatment of Slaves):
Passages discussing the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament have been criticized for not explicitly condemning slavery and, in some cases, appearing to regulate it.

Matthew 10:34-36 (Division):
This passage, where Jesus speaks about bringing a sword and division, can be controversial when interpreted as promoting conflict, particularly when applied to interfaith or intra-faith relations.

Ephesians 6:5-9 (Slavery and Masters):
Similar to Old Testament passages, New Testament verses that seem to regulate the relationship between slaves and masters have been criticized for not outright condemning slavery.

Numbers 31:17-18 (Treatment of Midianite Women):
This passage describes the killing of male children and the sparing of female children during warfare, which raises moral questions and concerns about the treatment of non-combatant populations.

Genesis 19:1-11 (Sodom and Gomorrah):
This passage is often cited in discussions about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, contributing to debates around the Bible's stance on homosexuality.

Historical Ecclesiastical Misconduct:
Instances of historical misconduct by the Church, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the clergy abuse scandals, have left lasting negative impressions on public perception.
Did Jesus prophesize this, yet say nothing to his followers to avoid it?

Resistance to Social Change:
Resistance or perceived resistance to social and cultural changes, led to criticism and vilification.

Civil Rights Movement:
Many Christian groups resisted the Civil Rights Movement, particularly during the mid-20th century. Some argued against desegregation and equal rights for African Americans based on perceived biblical justifications. The Christians arguing for desegregation were often Black, or Liberal (traditionally vilified by the Church).

Women's Liberation Movement:
Christian denominations have resisted aspects of the women's liberation movement, opposing women's rights, gender equality, and the expansion of roles for women in the church and society.

Reproductive Rights:
Christians, particularly within conservative branches of the faith, have traditionally resisted changes related to reproductive rights, such as access to contraception, abortion rights, and comprehensive sex education. (By Consrevative, we usually mean non-Liberal, non-luke warm Christians who adhere to every jot and tittle of the Bible).

LGBTQ+ Rights:
Most Christian denominations and groups have resisted advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, including marriage equality and protections against discrimination, often citing scriptural interpretations that view homosexuality as incompatible with

Scientific Advancements:
Throughout history, some Christians resisted certain scientific advancements that challenged traditional theological views, such as the heliocentric model of the solar system, the theory of evolution, and more recent debates over issues like climate change.

End-of-Life Issues:
Christians, particularly those in conservative circles, have sometimes resisted changes related to end-of-life issues, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, based on ethical considerations rooted in religious beliefs.

Secularization and Separation of Church and State:
Many Christians have resisted secularization trends and the separation of church and state, advocating for a more direct influence of religious values on governance and public policies.

Cultural Changes:
Christians have, at times, resisted broader cultural changes that are perceived as contrary to traditional values, including shifts in entertainment, fashion, and popular culture.

Environmental Stewardship:
While many Christian groups emphasize the importance of environmental stewardship, there have been instances where resistance to certain environmental policies stems from concerns about economic impact or conflicting interpretations of biblical teachings on human dominion.

Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation:
Many Christians have resisted efforts towards interfaith dialogue and cooperation, particularly with religions that have historically been viewed as competitors or adversaries.

Dogmatism and Intolerance:
The perception of dogmatism and intolerance towards differing beliefs or lifestyles can contribute to the vilification of Christianity. After all, one of the worst things you can do as a Christian is be tolerant of things you call sin, and to waver in your strong, Christian faith.

Missionary Activities and Cultural Imperialism:
Criticisms of missionary activities and perceptions of cultural imperialism contribute to the vilification of Christianity, especially in the context of colonial history.

Sexual Morality Debates:
Debates around sexual morality, including issues like abortion and contraception, may lead to vilification when Christian perspectives clash with broader societal views.

Political Activism:
Involvement in political activism, particularly when aligned with specific controversial policies or candidates, lead to polarization and criticism.

Proselytization Efforts:
Aggressive or perceived aggressive proselytization efforts are viewed negatively, leading to criticism and vilification.

Cultural Insensitivity:
Instances of cultural insensitivity, where Christian practices clash with or dismiss local customs, contribute to negative perceptions.

Hypocrisy:
Publicized instances of hypocrisy among prominent Christian figures or institutions can undermine the credibility of the faith and lead to vilification.

Religious Exclusivity:
Belief in the exclusivity of salvation through Christianity is viewed as intolerant, contributing to negative perceptions of the faith.


Now, I'm sure someone will shrug and say, "Well, that's all humanity! Other groups are just as bad!"

Maybe, but they also don't have a passage in their Holy Text that gives them license to be hated and then say that you'll be rewarded for it...

So, why are Christians vilified?

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing there is - if people have a special relationship with God, and He communicates with them, why the heck isn't he updating the teachings to keep pace with human moral codes? Either they fight against social advance or they quietly creep along behind and pretend it was always what they were doing.

Why the heck wont you join the LDS then?

Their doctrine of faith allows them to update to modern human moral code all they want.

In his time Joseph Smith received a holy vision from the mormon god:" Negros are subhuman 'cause black angels joined Satan during world war in heaven. Them may never gain priesthood in the church and will maximum be servants in heaven."

(Nothing to do with then current situation that Yankee Joseph was going to build his church in several southern states and no longer wished to be eyed with suspicion by the slave states!)

But in 1978 the then current LDS prophet received a holy counter-vision that allowed blacks to become LDS priests, and described them as not so bad after all.

LDS doctrine of faith officially allows every living prophet to spit upon all orders and visions of every dead prophet

Because I don't believe the Bible or Jesus and I don't believe in the teachings of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. That position of a fallacious doctrine having to update to keep pace with curent thought doesn't make it valid, but only that they are trying to patch up their invalidity.

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "But there is no such excuse now and enough irreligionists are around that it is clear - religion pulls back and secularism storms ahead and religion either tries to play catch - up or it gets Left Behind."

Yes, the writing is on the wall for this dinosaur theology. I agree with the opening post that Christianity is theologically confrontational,  but not in a good way.
God is on a mission to sort out dissent, once and for all , and there is benefit to be had for those who help this along. Even the most basic grifter politician on the planet could come up with this.

Same thing here. Updating old theology is just trying to plaster over a crumbling wall that should have been demolished long ago. I don't blame religion for their grifters. Only the members who allow them to prey on them. It is the religion itself I reject as being without valid reason to believe it and not because it is bad and needs improving.

[TRANSPONDER]

I prefer to do logical rather than moral arguments, but the fact is that Christianity claims the moral high ground and it really can't. Not even with Works, because in any religion, society or organisation, there are selfless people who just want to help and those who use the thing as cover for their own selfish activities. And certainly not with the Bible. Not even Jews follow that OT stuff, though they keep up the minutiae of dress and rules, but don't follow all the instructions and wouldn't even if they did bulldoze the Golden Mosque and rebuild the Temple.

The NT tries to be nice as pie, often to an absurd degree. Our pal 1213 used an excuse that Jesus wasn't on earth as why he shouldn't give all his stuff to the poor apart from which he would then be poor and they'd have to give it all back. It is not so much that the NT rules are immoral (though some are - like follow the religious - group and shun your family) but unworkable, and our pal did a good job of showing that. He wouldn't and couldn't do it and had to find an excuse.

So the Bible and Christianity fails on the moral High ground (and someday I'll explain why I think Tuo Quoque is valid in countering moral superiority claims) both in practice and in teachings. This has implications, not just for the Bible being obsolete and WHY it becomes obsolete, but also for the reactionary pushback against all progress, from human transplants and stem cell research to race and gender rights (which I have always supported even if it has now become a hate cult).

The thing there is - if people have a special relationship with God, and He communicates with them, why the heck isn't he updating the teachings to keep pace with human moral codes? Either they fight against social advance or they quietly creep along behind and pretend it was always what they were doing.

They may try to claim Christianity was behind emancipation, which it never was. Only in the 1860's everyone was Christian, so of course some were doing the underground railway, but others were fighting it and using the Bible to justify it, too.

And in the 1960's race rights used preaching style to deliver the message, but religion had never preached it. It was human rights and even species identity equality that made that case, even if they dressed it up in religious words.

But there is no such excuse now and enough irreligionists are around that it is clear - religion pulls back and secularism storms ahead and religion either tries to play catch - up or it gets Left Behind.

True, logical arguments are better, but we are emotional, moral agents and we can't deny this part of our nature - especially, as you so intelligently point out - when there is a group that claims to be the paradigm of moral values, and that "without God, I'd rape and murder!" (As some of them rape and murder, and others hide them from the law).

it is not a question of denying our emotional nature. While Mr Spock is a sort of Icon for me, he is a straw Vulcan (one may Google that) because he is not logical but a jaundiced and mistaken public view of what logic leads to - a rejection of emotion and a being lacking in any appreciation of beauty.

Rather, we should understand and embrace emotion where it is positive, but not let it control us. You point up (thanks) a common and false apologetic that without a God - given moral compass (supposedly set out in the Bible) we'd all go around raping and murdering. Curious that those are the Iconic Worst Sins.

We have and need a moral compass and we'd do well to understand what it is and realise that we are trying to make the best job of a makeshift get -by social mechanism produced by evolution from pack behavior. We may be thankful that our tribal instincts are based on social empathy and we don't behave like the big cats (look up their mating habits). Chimps have some nasty tribal habits and Bonobos have some others which I'll leave to others to approve or disapprove. I'll just say that we poor males are driven by an urge that we can't deal with and if we can, we get put in jail and eliminated.

At the risk of getting off the Forum and ruffling a few pink - dyed pudding -bowl haircuts, man-hate is an ancient instinct of a mate invited into the cave and the man finds himself pushed out as the woman manages the family group and he gets his oats if he brings back a leg of mammoth for lunch.

It all causes a lot of problems from wars to divorces because we don't understand our emotions and instincts. I trust one day we will and of course will look back at the time some ascribed it to a god putting it in our heads (with a 'Fall' to explain why so much of it is selfish and tribal, and never mind that all natuture seems to have 'fallen' with Adam) as we do to a time when we burned witches and heretics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #9]


I certainly get that we don't understand ourselves. I sometimes wonder if anyone is even trying. It seems obvious to me that we are creatures of instinct which we don't understand. If anyone is even researching social evolutionary history I haven't heard a thing about it. It is of course the most Jerkish thing in the Nt that God is thanked for keeping knowledge from the learned and revevealing 'Truth'to the infantile.

Does this give license for Christians to be jerks?

I think it is weird to call people who remain in truth jerks. But, I think all people have even without the Bible right to be "jerks". Do you think people would need a permission to be "jerks", especially when a jerk seems to mean a person who just happens to disagree with you? I think people should have more tolerance for different opinions and not instantly call them jerks, if they don't accept the same opinions.

Ah it's more than that. It isn't about disagreeing. It isn't even about taking it personally that we disagree; it is about a bitter cultural war that can manifest in religious, political or racial conflict.

Just take the situation between Russia and Ukraine. At one time after Ukraine became independent (after the collapse of communism) they were like family. It is as much a tragedy as th US Civilwar - or the British one, ot eh Korean divide, or India and Pakistan. It was all unnecessary and could have been avoided.

Point is, this emotional tribalism is what makes for the dickishness - on both sides. What makes it worse of course is when one side has it right on logic and evidence but is harsh in presenting their case (even South Park called Dawkins one who showed atheists how to be dicks) and those who use diatribe to cover up that they are doing personal attacks, misrepresentations and downright lies just to get the advantage. There are few more dickish things than to smear atheism with politrcal Dogmatists, or to quote Bible verses callling anyone who does not accept thir authority as 'Fools'. It isn't just atheists. Pharisees have got an iconically bad press.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

I find myself agreeing with large sways of your point of view and I would encourage people to deeply consider what you say.
I regard your visionary solutions to our situation, going forward, as being utopianistic propaganda , ie, will never happen. I have said this before. I make this assessment without any joy in doing so.

So, we dump God! What then?
TRANSPONDER, is calling the shots!

Do you want us to push a particular type of political agenda?
Do you want us to push a particular moral agenda.
Do you want us to let the thing evolve organically?
Do you want us to seek consensus and conformity?
How can that be done. Family members don't agree?
Our individual moods are like the weather.
What hope do you offer to people living in North Korea in 2034?

Repeating the mantra that anything is better than God and his religions is delusional. You have a chip on your shoulder that skews your perception and allows you a latitude of consideration, that in reality, is not there for anyone. imho.

[1213]

It is of course the most Jerkish thing in the Nt that God is thanked for keeping knowledge from the learned and revevealing 'Truth'to the infantile.

I think it depends greatly on how it is done. I don't think Bible God does anything jerkish.

Just take the situation between Russia and Ukraine. At one time after Ukraine became independent (after the collapse of communism) they were like family. It is as much a tragedy as th US Civilwar - or the British one, ot eh Korean divide, or India and Pakistan. It was all unnecessary and could have been avoided.

I agree with that.

....or to quote Bible verses calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'....

If person is a fool, I think it is not wrong to say so, but. I would like to see that scripture.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

I find myself agreeing with large sways of your point of view and I would encourage people to deeply consider what you say.
I regard your visionary solutions to our situation, going forward, as being utopianistic propaganda , ie, will never happen. I have said this before. I make this assessment without any joy in doing so.

So, we dump God! What then?
TRANSPONDER, is calling the shots!

Do you want us to push a particular type of political agenda?
Do you want us to push a particular moral agenda.
Do you want us to let the thing evolve organically?
Do you want us to seek consensus and conformity?
How can that be done. Family members don't agree?
Our individual moods are like the weather.
What hope do you offer to people living in North Korea in 2034?

Repeating the mantra that anything is better than God and his religions is delusional. You have a chip on your shoulder that skews your perception and allows you a latitude of consideration, that in reality, is not there for anyone. imho.

look in the mirror, pal. I could say: "Repeating the mantra that nothing is better than God and his religions is delusional. You have a chip on your shoulder that skews your perception and allows you a latitude of consideration, that in reality, is not helpful for anyone. imho."

Bu t it isn't about Opinions, humble or otherwise, nor dishing out personal accusations, but about making a case why we should believe in any god, let alone why its' opinion should count for anything.

What do we do without Religion as a moral guide? Do the best we can (and religion hasn't had a stellar record in that) and improve as much as we can, while religion plays catch - up and tries to claim the credit for it. That is, the best of them, while the worst fight against moral improvements.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is of course the most Jerkish thing in the Nt that God is thanked for keeping knowledge from the learned and revevealing 'Truth'to the infantile.

I think it depends greatly on how it is done. I don't think Bible God does anything jerkish.

Just take the situation between Russia and Ukraine. At one time after Ukraine became independent (after the collapse of communism) they were like family. It is as much a tragedy as th US Civilwar - or the British one, ot eh Korean divide, or India and Pakistan. It was all unnecessary and could have been avoided.

I agree with that.

....or to quote Bible verses calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'....

If person is a fool, I think it is not wrong to say so, but. I would like to see that scripture.

No; calling names proves that the person doing it has nothing better to offer as a case. And you know the passage, or should.
Psalm 14
King James Version
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

[1213]

If person is a fool, I think it is not wrong to say so, but. I would like to see that scripture.

No; calling names proves that the person doing it has nothing better to offer as a case. And you know the passage, or should.
Psalm 14
King James Version
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Hmmm.... ...but that doesn't really calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'. It says fool said in his heart that there is no God.

[Clownboat]

Hmmm.... ...but that doesn't really calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'. It says fool said in his heart that there is no God.

If a fool has figure this out, what excuse does a religious person have for believing in a god or gods?

[TRANSPONDER]

If person is a fool, I think it is not wrong to say so, but. I would like to see that scripture.

No; calling names proves that the person doing it has nothing better to offer as a case. And you know the passage, or should.
Psalm 14
King James Version
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Hmmm.... ...but that doesn't really calling anyone who does not accept their authority as 'Fools'. It says fool said in his heart that there is no God.

If I ungarble that, it is not about Authority. It is just smearing anyone who believes differently. It is just name - calling and for the worst possible reason - difference of opinion. Can you explain why 'authority' has any relevance to that? Of course anyone who denies,say, that the president of the US does not exist but that does not apply to many god. After many decades of debate no theist has made a decent case for a god existing, while the atheist case is rock solid logical.