Should Christians be hated?

[plaingirly]

Random question! I opened my Bible on Matthew 10 and verse 22 says :

And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

I think there is another verse similar but can't remember it.

So if someone is really a follower of Jesus will people hate them and if people don't hate them are they not strong enough in their faith?

I don't really want to be hated! Also at work we have to get along with people so having them hate us wouldn't be ideal. Unless the verses are more specific or maybe aimed at the disciples.

[Italiangreyhound]

BackOnlyBriefly the angels are singing that you want to read Jesus' diary! .

It's quite different to loving a neighbor or partner.

Of course it is all different, he is God, how could it just be run of the mill! I can't prove it, I'm trying to talk about it in a way that makes sense.

[Italiangreyhound]

Pedro a natural cause for the big bang would still need it's own natural cause so round we go in a circle, what started it? How would it all sit with my faith? Well my faith is fairly open in that I want to experience God and let God draw the best out of me, I try to live my life in a good way and my belief in the Bible as an evangelical is quite important to me but I also take it in context so when there are bits that I find hard to understand I don't have a faith that crumbles like a crunchie under foot. So new scientific evidence makes me think God is bigger. Thanks to some atheists I think I am now able to see God as bigger than I would have before. because relying too much on very set agenda actually limites God. Not sure if that makes sense. But basically new scientific evidence would not sit badly.

What would shake my faith? Oh just about everything, I am a very doubting believer!

Pedro does you faith or lack or faith make you happy?

Thanks for talking you make so much sense but then to me I do too!

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Pedro does you faith or lack or faith make you happy?

I don't think my lack of faith has any bearing whatsoever on my happiness. The things which make me happy are my family around me and partaking in activities I enjoy.

[Italiangreyhound]

My faith is a source of great joy to me. But I also agree with you Pedro on the importance of family and doing things we enjoy.

[Italiangreyhound]

I guess I think a positive faith does add something good to life.

[EllieArroway]

the angels are singing that you want to read Jesus' diary! I don't know if I've missed the joke, or something, but there's no such thing, Italian. Hope you haven't fallen for some con.

The "scholarship community" (most of whom are theologians with literature degrees in the NT) do generally feel that Jesus existed as a historical person, that's true. But this is NOT because of evidence - it's based on inference. An actual historian will tell you that it's impossible to know for certain at this stage because there's simply not enough evidence.

And regarding the Big Bang (which you and I have talked about before) if you're going to listen to science as you claim, then please listen to why science is not assigning the "cause" of the BB to some loving being as you are doing. It's impossible to know whether there a) was a cause b) if that's even a valid question and c) what that "cause" might be. If you've decided that any "cause" is not just a god, but YOUR god in particular, then you are doing so because you want to, and not because the evidence supports it. If you're ignoring the input of evidence altogether, then why bother with science at all?

We've also talked about the "evidence for love" issue too. I thought we'd reached an understanding about how we defined love and that it could and is demonstrated with evidence, so it's not remotely analogous to your faith in God.

thermalsinapril Some of us have done the legwork, and found not the tiniest shred of evidence that Jesus existed. Unlike the vast, vast majority of Christians who haven't investigated the matter at all and simply believe what they are told by vicars and pastors..."Of course Jesus existed! It's historical fact". No, it isn't. That's a lie, pure and simple. There's literally NO evidence that Jesus existed.

Why is pointing out facts "goading" Christians. This just suggests that they can't cope with facts. I'd have to agree, sadly.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ellie hi,

We've also talked about the "evidence for love" issue too. I thought we'd reached an understanding about how we defined love and that it could and is demonstrated with evidence, so it's not remotely analogous to your faith in God. I don't remember reaching any understand about that? are you talking about this thread or another. Or on here, I am just pontificating on stuff, I have said a lot of times I have no proof but I feel for me that the experience of people is a kind of evidence but I totally get that lots of others won't see it that way. I don't think there is much we have reached any agreement on. I am just enjoying hearing the views of pedro et al. It is interesting to know what you guys think. I know I won't change your mind/s or anything but I want to understand you.

the angels are singing that you want to read Jesus' diary!

yes, it was a joke, just making light of the fact that BackOnlyBriefly might want to read Jesus' diary! I hope Back doesn't mind, it was just a quip!

I don't want to get into a big debate here for the evidence for Jesus, I think you have a whole nother thread for that. I mean of course I don't mind what you want to talk about but I don't want to go into all that. You can discuss things from whatever direction you like and that is fine of course but I don't want to get into a big debate on whether Jesus was a real person or not. I think he was.


I don't remember talking about the big bang much either.

Regarding the big bang, if that is how it all started (and I am not a scientist and I have no proof for the big bag either), then I do thin ksomething started it and the something I think started it was God and yes, of course I think it was my belief of God that started it or I would not believe in my God as a creator.

[Italiangreyhound]

I'm off tonight for bank holiday so just in case anyone replies and I don't get back to you straight away I am not locked in a pit of emotional despair that anyone has disproved my God , I am on holiday!

Hope the bank holiday is sunny and happy for you all.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

the angels are singing that you want to read Jesus' diary! I liked that, Italiangreyhound :) Have a good bank holiday.

For those who missed it I said further back that if it turned out that Jesus did exist after all and kept a diary then I'd be interested to read it.

There's a sort of serious point there. Even though I've looked for evidence that Jesus existed and found none, that's not the same as hoping he didn't. I don't mind at all if he existed. I wouldn't assume he was god of course, but even if he became a preacher cos he was crap at carpentry it would still be a good read.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

It's entirely possible he was handing around some mind bending drugs. Might account for the crazy stories......

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I can just imagine Joesph shouting up at Jesus in the morning.

"...and when are you getting up? Sunday is not a day of rest you know!"

"...and hanging around with those weird friends of yours all day. I dread to think what you get up to - you know that John is wanted by the authorities don't you?"

"At your age I was learning my father's trade. You can't even hammer a nail without sticking it through your hand."

"I can hardly believe that you're my son the way you act"

[EllieArroway]

Even though I've looked for evidence that Jesus existed and found none, that's not the same as hoping he didn't. I don't mind at all if he existed

Ne neither. I'd be fascinated to find out that he did. I think most Christians assume I'm desperate to believe he didn't. Not so - I find the alternative (that he was a myth evolved from older myths) a bit boring and unsatisfying. If I want to be generous, I could almost imagine him as a kind of Martin Luther King figure - not divine, but interesting enough to have an impact that's reverberated down the centuries. Unfortunately, I don't think even that since no one seemed to be remotely interested in him during his lifetime.

I think he might have existed, died in a strange enough way (perhaps his body was stolen from the tomb?) that a bunch of hysterical women started claiming resurrection. People believed it (because they believed just about anything back then) and Christianity was born.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ellie why do you think people 'back then' believed just about anything?

If he had made comments about being resurrected don't you think his tomb would have been guarded?

Don't you think the gospel accounts have anything to say historically?

Just curious.

Thanks BackOnlyBriefly I had a great bank holiday, just sorry to be back to normal life again!

[EllieArroway]

Ellie why do you think people 'back then' believed just about anything?

Because they did. It was a monumentally superstitious time. Even sensible histories written by people like Seutonius are infested with talk of omens and portents. That some people believed in a resurrected Jesus does not indicate, even minimally, that it actually happened. Unless you're prepared to believe that because some people believed that their god was born of a rock (Mithras) that that actually happened too. Are you?

If he had made comments about being resurrected don't you think his tomb would have been guarded?

So what if it had been? Would that have stopped Jesus resurrecting? Why?

And if he actually had resurrected, don't you think there'd have been a rush to see the place where it supposedly happened? There wasn't.

Bottom line, Italian - if ANY of these remarkable things had really happened, we'd see it reflected in the vast historical record of the time. We can't find even the merest whisper. If you don't see that as a problem, I can't imagine why.

Don't you think the gospel accounts have anything to say historically?

No.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

why do you think people 'back then' believed just about anything?

Because people now will believe just about anything too. Given the right information. Whilst individuals can be smart, 'people' on the whole are pretty stupid.

Think about the MMR scare. The vaccination levels dropped substantially because someone falsified research and published as fact. The media got hold of it and suddenly the bad science is truth and all our children are getting autism because of an injection. This is exactly what the 'scientist' wanted because he had a vested interest in a single Measles jab.

It's not hard to imagine that individuals 'back in the day' were just as savvy when it came to convincing people of truths to get what they wanted.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ellie Do I think god was born form a rock (Mithras), no.

So what if it had been? Would that have stopped Jesus resurrecting? Why? No it would not have stopped him resurrecting. But it might have meant that when the disciples claimed to have seen him, then the authorities would produce the body.

Not the merest whisper, what about all the references in the Bible? Don't worry skip that part I know what you will say.

The fact we are still celebrating it all seems to be significant but not proof, I understand that.

Pedro The measels MMR scandle was a terrible awful attrocity. I am not going to compare that to my faith.

Always a pleasure to talk to you.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Pedro The measels MMR scandle was a terrible awful attrocity. I am not going to compare that to my faith.

No, and I wouldn't expect you to, that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing out that it's actually not that difficult to make a huge group of people believe something which is not true if you deliver it in the right way. There are still people now who think MMR is linked to autism (often they are parents of autistic children, I know a few, who should really know better).

In the modern world, using 'science speak' is quite convincing for those who don't understand science. Back in the day, it would have been a similar thing, except the 'science' was explaining, say, why we have thunder. Those who were considered intelligent could easily convince those who weren't.

It's not always malicious, sometimes it's a genuine mistake, but often the information is distributed for someone's gain.... Homeopathy anyone?

[Italiangreyhound]

Pedro thank you.

I am just a bit confused, it seemed Ellie was saying people were guillible back then and you are saying they are still. I think there were always gullible people and there probably always will be. I will never really understand why the MMR thing took off the way it did. I think people will always be a bit gullible but then I guess you think I am so I am proving my own argument! Blessings Pedro.

[EllieArroway]

It's not about "gullibility", Italian. They lived in a very, very different time to us and simply did not see the world in anything like the same way that we do. The average 5 year old today has more knowledge than the smartest person back then. Not because they were stupid - they were just as smart as us - but because they knew literally nothing. There was no science to speak of so they were left trying to make sense of a confusing world in the best way they could. This tended to be gods, demons, omens & so on.

Plus - the Jews had not really been having a happy time of things, and they were basically waiting for the Messiah to show up and make things better for them. That's why there were so many Messiah claimants around - and they all had their followers because people WANTED to believe. And, in a world, where almost nobody has the slightest doubt that gods were in charge of everything & could perform wondrous feats, then it's not hard to see how they could easily become convinced that someone really had resurrected.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ellie I don't know what kind of smart five year olds you hang around with but I am pretty sure those I know are no where near as intelligent (nor do they need to be) than adults 2,000 years ago. Knowing stuff is a bit confusing, I mean you can know a lot without really understanding it. I am not sure your average person understands a lot more about the world these days, but they sure know a lot!

they were basically waiting for the Messiah to show up

Not a bad thing to be - they were basically waiting for the Messiah to show up! But maybe they did not expect the Messiah to be exactly what he was, maybe they expected something different.

I think to some extend I am with Pedro on this, ...Because people now will believe just about anything too. Given the right information.

[Italiangreyhound]

I don't believe just about anything, of course!

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

I think there's a good point here. People now will tend to believe things presented to them as science because science is generally accepted as the path to knowledge. If someone presents sciency dialogue explaining how wearing magnets increases your blood flow because blood contains iron which sticks to magnets, if you don't understand the science, you can easily be drawn in by it.

When you live in a society where religious scholars are considered to be the most intelligent, if they present a religiousy dialogue explaining how the Messiah will come to earth and save us all, if you don't understand the religion you could easily be drawn in.

In both cases, one could step in and take advantage of the ignorance of the crowd to make a bit of cash or find some other personal gain.

[Italiangreyhound]

Good point Pedro I am always wary of people wanting my cash! At my church we do pass the collection bag around but actually all we do and offer is free. We have coffees, meals, socials and all that is free. When there are things that need to be paid for I totally understand but any religion or group who is just looking to line their own pockets would not be one I would want to be associate with. The problem can come when organised religion gets big! The C of E has money I am sure but it also had people who work and serve for little cash reward and it offers things to people for free too (I am not C of E). I am always most moved by those who are serving so much and I am sure that would contain members of the science community too.

Pedro!!! Scary we are almost agreeing!!

[Italiangreyhound]

Now Pedro you need to disagree with me and say we are agreeing!

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

It's not just about making money at a local level. I'll take the RC church as an example, simply because it makes the point more easily. So you have individual RC members popping along to their local church every Sunday (or perhaps just once in a while) and let's say they don't ever contribute to the collection tin, they just go along for free services and the odd coffee morning. But even though they don't fund anything, simply by being a member of the church they help to propagate the organisation. An organisation which contains many millions of people who do invest an awful lot of money to the cause.

The Pope has a status of extreme power, but that has only been achieved because of the pure numbers of Roman Catholics. If all those mild Christians didn't bother with their coffee mornings, the flock would be smaller and the organisation far less powerful.

So yes, I agree with you. But, (I'm sure there'll always be a but!) there's always someone who is benefiting. And in this case it happens to be an elderly Argentinian man who now has a big house in Rome, an army to protect him and a billion people who hang on his every word.