Why We Can’t Trust Christians To Run ANYTHING.

[Arlette]

Back to the op, hard disagree and gross overgeneralization.

Matthew 22:22
Render unto Caesar......

 

[nota bene]

It's all voluntary. I know because I served at a rescue mission for almost five years.

That depends on the shelter and the group supporting it. There was in my community a homeless shelter set up by a non-denom group, and this group absolutely did insist on church service attendance. This is definitely not true of all shelters, but it is true of at least a few of them.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You missed something important. Here's Exodus 20:5 -

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

So if someone hates you, you think that you are justified in ordering your armies to murder their great-grandchildren in the cradle? And you wonder why some of us might not feel that people who hold such views can be trusted with power?

"Still, the penalty upon the children is not final or irreversible. Under whatever disadvantages they are born, they may struggle against them, and lead good lives, and place themselves, even in this world, on a level with those who were born under every favourable circumstance.

Tell that to the Amalekite mothers who watched helplessly as the armies of God stabbed their children and infants to death in revenge for something their long-dead ancestors did. What chance did those babies have to "lead good lives, and place themselves, even in this world, on a level with those who were born under every favourable circumstance?"

It is needless to say that, as respects another world, their parents’ iniquities will not be visited on them. “Each man will bear his own burthen.” The soul that sinneth, it shall die. “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20)." https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/20-5.htm

Great. Perhaps Christians can be trusted with power in another world then.

 

[Somerville]

It would be nice to get back to the thought expressed in my OP. Not all Christians are untrustworthy but there are certainly SOME who should be viewed in a skeptical manner.

In a separate post, the Captain has a few words to say about the lack of accountability that has allowed too many - not all, but certainly way too many - evangelical preachers to continue their rather non-Christian acts.

We have had posts discussing the Resurrection, the Testimonium Flavianum, socialism and personal attacks - none of which are directly related to the OP.

Is it possible to return to the topic? and perhaps someone could start threads on those other topics which are suitable for Beliefs & Skepticism

 

[Firebrand]

"Captain Cassidy was raised Catholic, converted to Pentecostalism in her mid-teens, married a preacher, and deconverted after college. She blogs about religion, deconversion, video and tabletop p gaming,

Stopped reading there.

 

[Firebrand]

Also the narrative here is fallacious and paranoid. it doesn't specify why the types of corruption which will allegedly happen in a so-called "theocratic" state would be any more likely to happen there than in any other state, or at least any type of "authoritarian" state.

 

[Somerville]

Also the narrative here is fallacious and paranoid. it doesn't specify why the types of corruption which will allegedly happen in a so-called "theocratic" state would be any more likely to happen there than in any other state, or at least any type of "authoritarian" state.

The point is not "corruption", instead it is the fact that in a theocratic state those who don't adhere to the state religion will not have the same rights and privileges as those who belong to the 'state' church.

 

[bomberfox]

"And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in his hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain in the “Acts” of Pontius Pilate" – Justin Martyr, First Apology, XXXV. Later in the same work Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, “And that he did these things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”

Pete Righter

Christian conservative.

righterreport.com

And from the same linked article: "By the way, there have been occasional skeptics who have claimed that Pontius Pilate never existed. To their chagrin archaeologists excavating the ruins of the “Theater at Caesarea” in 1963 found a Latin inscription that named “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”

Next,

A few probable interpolations in the testimonium flavinium, but authentic passages in it as well.

Josephus’ Testimony of Christ: Evidence for Authenticity - Truth Watchers

Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is purposed as enitrely authentic based on the context depicting sarcasm in a deragatory rhetorical devise attacking Christ.

truthwatchers.com

There are very very few people who deny Pilate exists. Truthwatchers lol… i gave ya actual scholarly works bub.

 

[bomberfox]

You haven't learned a thing, have you? That's ok. Skeptics of Christianity here in the DP forums never do - at least I've never seen one admit he or she was wrong on anything related to Jesus. But then most of them are liberals too, who are largely history-challenged.

 

[Mulefoot]

We only have accounts from translations through three languages many decades after Jesus’ supposed death, Pilate’s actions are only described in the bible but not verified via extra biblical texts, the testimonium flavinium that we have today have many false accounts (since we have interpretations from others) https://www.researchgate.net/public...His_Testimony_Concerning_the_Historical_Jesus
It is likely that later christian scholars inserted extras into Tacitus’ account of jesus to fill in gaps.

We have enough to feel Pilate's actions are reasonably verified. Each NT written was, when originally written and for centuries after, an extra-biblical text. And nothing about gluing those texts inside a sheet of fine Corinthian leather makes it less reliable.

 

[Logicman]

So if someone hates you, you think that you are justified in ordering your armies to murder their great-grandchildren in the cradle? And you wonder why some of us might not feel that people who hold such views can be trusted with power?

Tell that to the Amalekite mothers who watched helplessly as the armies of God stabbed their children and infants to death in revenge for something their long-dead ancestors did. What chance did those babies have to "lead good lives, and place themselves, even in this world, on a level with those who were born under every favourable circumstance?"

Great. Perhaps Christians can be trusted with power in another world then.

You need a lot of help with your theology.

Perhaps you should understand that the murdering Amalekites - who unprovoked, attacked the Israelites - would just bring up their children in the same murdering fashion that they themselves practiced. They deserved what they got. And so do all the unrepentant God-mockers who think they know better than God. Their place is in the Lake of Fire.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You need a lot of help with your theology.

Perhaps you should understand that the murdering Amalekites - who unprovoked, attacked the Israelites - would just bring up their children in the same murdering fashion that they themselves practiced. They deserved what they got.

I am familiar with the tale of how the Amalekites attacked the Israelites as they were fleeing Egypt in the 15th century BC. I am also familiar with how in the 11th century BC, God ordered Saul to seek revenge for that attack 400 years earlier, by killing every Amalekite man, woman, child, and infant.

To my way of thinking, stabbing little babies while their mothers watch in horror in revenge for something their ancestors did 400 years previously isn't really administering what those babies and mothers "deserved." I can understand why you would think so though. You do follow a God who punishes the children for the sins of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation. Those 15th century Amalekites attacked the Israelites, so naturally, from your perspective, their 11th-century descendants had to be put to the sword.

Some of us have a different perspective, however. We don't think that people who believe that babies "deserve" to be stabbed to death in revenge for something their ancestors did 300 years earlier should be trusted to run anything.

And so do all the unrepentant God-mockers who think they know better than God. Their place is in the Lake of Fire.

Do you believe you are making a compelling case for why Christians should be trusted with power by saying that all the unrepentant non-Christians deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire?

 

[Logicman]

I am familiar with the tale of how the Amalekites attacked the Israelites as they were fleeing Egypt in the 15th century BC. I am also familiar with how in the 11th century BC, God ordered Saul to seek revenge for that attack 400 years earlier, by killing every Amalekite man, woman, child, and infant.

To my way of thinking, stabbing little babies while their mothers watch in horror in revenge for something their ancestors did 400 years previously isn't really administering what those babies and mothers "deserved." I can understand why you would think so though. You do follow a God who punishes the children for the sins of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation. Those 15th century Amalekites attacked the Israelites, so naturally, from your perspective, their 11th-century descendants had to be put to the sword.

Some of us have a different perspective, however. We don't think that people who believe that babies "deserve" to be stabbed to death in revenge for something their ancestors did 300 years earlier should be trusted to run anything.

Hey - liberals and other heathens don't wait that long to butcher the innocent unborn. They're all over them like a bum on a ham sandwich.

But for the record, the babies wind up in heaven because they haven't reached the age of maturity yet in order to make a decision about God and morality, etc.. So they're in great shape. Their unrepentant murdering parents not so much.

Also, unless you take the criminal parents out then justice cannot be served. And when you do take them out, who's going to tend to the babies? They'll just be left to squirm around on the floor until they expire. That's your vision of their alternate future. Very chic!

 

[Logicman]

Do you believe you are making a compelling case for why Christians should be trusted with power by saying that all the unrepentant non-Christians deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire?

That's God's deal. I'm going to tell him he's wrong in Revelation 21:8, etc.? I will say to the unrepentant heathens, watch out for that step-off into eternity without Christ as one's savior.

 

[Logicman]

There are very very few people who deny Pilate exists. Truthwatchers lol… i gave ya actual scholarly works bub.

Hey - you skeptics used to also claim King David was a myth until they found the Tel Dan tablets.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Hey - liberals and other heathens don't wait that long to butcher the innocent unborn. They're all over them like a bum on a ham sandwich.

But for the record, the babies wind up in heaven because they haven't reached the age of maturity yet in order to make a decision about God and morality, etc.. So they're in great shape. Their unrepentant murdering parents not so much.

But aren't their mothers doing them a great service when they abort? If they were allowed to reach the age of maturity, they might fall to sin and suffer eternal torment. Why take the risk? Mothers who abort guarantee their children will know nothing but endless bliss in heaven, never even having to suffer in this mortal world even a minute. It seems like if they sacrifice their own immortal souls in order that their children should never be burdened by sin, that is downright saintly.

Also, unless you take the criminal parents out then justice cannot be served.

The criminal parents had been dead hundreds of years already. It was the descendants 400 years later who were put to death for the transgressions of their ancestors.

And when you do take them out, who's going to tend to the babies? They'll just be left to squirm around on the floor until they expire. That's your vision of their alternate future. Very chic!

You're telling me that God managed to get a pair of kangaroos to hop from the mountains of Ararat all the way across the Indian Ocean to end up in Australia, but that He just had no other way to keep the babies from squirming around on the floor until they expired, other than to order some humans to stab those babies to death?

 

[Logicman]

But aren't their mothers doing them a great service when they abort? If they were allowed to reach the age of maturity, they might fall to sin and suffer eternal torment. Why take the risk? Mothers who abort guarantee their children will know nothing but endless bliss in heaven, never even having to suffer in this mortal world even a minute. It seems like if they sacrifice their own immortal souls in order that their children should never be burdened by sin, that is downright saintly.

Let the babies grow up and make their own choices.

 

[Arlette]

Hey - liberals and other heathens don't wait that long to butcher the innocent unborn. They're all over them like a bum on a ham sandwich.

But for the record, the babies wind up in heaven because they haven't reached the age of maturity yet in order to make a decision about God and morality, etc.. So they're in great shape. Their unrepentant murdering parents not so much.

Also, unless you take the criminal parents out then justice cannot be served. And when you do take them out, who's going to tend to the babies? They'll just be left to squirm around on the floor until they expire. That's your vision of their alternate future. Very chic!

Lol
Great screen name, btw

 

[Dragonfly]

Let the babies grow up and make their own choices.

tell that to your god - it killed, and kills babies and the unborn with extreme regularity.

 

[Exquisitor]

That's God's deal. I'm going to tell him he's wrong in Revelation 21:8, etc.? I will say to the unrepentant heathens, watch out for that step-off into eternity without Christ as one's savior.

Can't imagine it.

The unfortunate are those that despair, when they realize their mistake, they should realize, they got benefit for being human on His planet.

Why should any be considered unsaved, the Savior is always available to everyone.

 

[Somerville]

Hey - you skeptics used to also claim King David was a myth until they found the Tel Dan tablets.

The find at Tel Dan was a stele, not tablets, a stone monument that had been broken and the fragments re-used in building a wall. There are 3 pieces of the stele that have provided the inscription which some archaeologists have interpreted as verifying the existence of a King David of Israel. Other specialists disagree with that interpretation, a few have even said they believe the inscription, at least in part, to be a modern forgery on an ancient find.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Let the babies grow up and make their own choices.

You mean like how the Amalekite babies were allowed to grow up to make their own decisions? I thought you were just talking about how it was fine to kill them because it means they get to go to heaven.

View attachment 67365239

It seems that you agree with the title of the thread then.

If those willing to kill the unborn should not be allowed to govern the living, and Christians are willing to kill the unborn when commanded by God, as was the case with the Amalekites, then the only logical conclusion is that Christians should not be allowed to govern the living.

 

[LittleNipper]

That depends on the shelter and the group supporting it. There was in my community a homeless shelter set up by a non-denom group, and this group absolutely did insist on church service attendance. This is definitely not true of all shelters, but it is true of at least a few of them.

I can understand that initially, people can need some help. The problem is that when those claiming to need help take and take and take, but feel no obligation to give anything of themselves ----- it becomes exploitation. Everyone's time and energy is wasted at the expense of others who might really want to be helped... Very often the help needed and necessary to turn someone's life around is spiritual. Throwing money at this will not break that cycle.

 

[LittleNipper]

You mean like how the Amalekite babies were allowed to grow up to make their own decisions? I thought you were just talking about how it was fine to kill them because it means they get to go to heaven.



It seems that you agree with the title of the thread then.

If those willing to kill the unborn should not be allowed to govern the living, and Christians are willing to kill the unborn when commanded by God, as was the case with the Amalekites, then the only logical conclusion is that Christians should not be allowed to govern the living.

"Christians" have not been commanded by GOD to kill Amalekites or anyone else for that matter. However, Christians have been called upon to drop bombs upon agressive, ungodly nations. And very often the innocent are killed as an indirect result of the sin of that agressor. It is knowing the difference that makes for a great leader.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

"Christians" have not been commanded by GOD to kill Amalekites or anyone else for that matter. However, Christians have been called upon to drop bombs upon agressive, ungodly nations.

Dropping bombs on "ungodly" nations is exactly what I would expect when Christians are put in charge of bombs. That is why Christians should perhaps not be trusted to be in charge of bombs.

And very often the innocent are killed as an indirect result of the sin of that agressor.

In scripture, God specifically mentioned children and infants as primary targets for the armies that served him. There was nothing indirect about it.