Daijinryuu thread – on historical Christian violence

Daijinryuu, I’ve brought the thread to my site in case you wanted to discuss further here (also due to readability errors and recent force of habit).

I could never be a Christian because both my spiritual and literal ancestors were mercilessly and unnecessarily killed when the christ-god said “thou shant murder”. where does jesus get off saying his followers do not have to fast or follow kosher anymore, or sacrifice to the god who is called i am? and how come just because a woman has a vagina and womanly hormones, she is automatically subservient to man (even though galations 3:8 states oppositely that there is no jew/gentile, slave/master, man/woman in god?). and, of course, why is he called jesus of nazareth instead of jesus of bethelehem, because everyone either bore the name “x of/from some city” or “x son of y”. and studying israeli history shows there is no city called nazareth in that day or age.

my god desires sacrifice, but is best pleased with song, water, plants, or devotion. (i am a devotee of krishna.)

There’s obviously no excuse in the actions of supposed devotees of the past. I can only offer my apologies and say that I, myself, have learned, or have a greater understanding of the teachings of Jesus and illegitimatacy of the justifications used for preemptive war as a result of it. (Although, that’s far from the case for many American Christians today… in fact I used to be one of those in support of the Iraq drumbeating)

However, in the same vein, couldn’t you apply the same criticism to your own dogma? It’s not like war has been an exclusive product of Christianity alone – clearly, it has existed since the beginning of man. So in essence, the argument could be made that your ancestors killed your own ancestors, could it not?

Regarding your specific criticisms, you mention a few other points:

  • where does jesus get off saying his followers do not have to fast or follow kosher anymore, or sacrifice to the god who is called i am?
  • and how come just because a woman has a vagina and womanly hormones, she is automatically subservient to man (even though galations 3:8 states oppositely that there is no jew/gentile, slave/master, man/woman in god?).
  • and, of course, why is he called jesus of nazareth instead of jesus of bethelehem, because everyone either bore the name “x of/from some city” or “x son of y”. and studying israeli history shows there is no city called nazareth in that day or age.

Did you want a defense of these points, or was it your intention to argue for the supremacy of your religion’s morality/historical basis over Christianity (we know what Junaman would think about that)?

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Daijinryuu thread – on historical Christian violence

  1. I never say my religion is better: all beliefs that are based on compassion for all other beings are equally valid. Devotees after Krishna have always been seen as equal in His Eyes…the roles performed by each sex though was in regard to the marterial world’s social norms and regulations of the day.

    It will not matter what you say to bring me back to fundamental Christianity…I almost destroyed myself and my spirit while being one. Buddhism, Vaishnava, Zen, and Taoism saved me from myself.

    Reply
  2. Daijinryuu,

    I’m not looking to bring you back to “fundamentalist Christianity” whatsoever. In fact, I have my own major qualms against it as well. I guess it might be because I never experienced it firsthand, though, that I never felt myself on the “edge of destruction” (suicide?), as it were.

    What was your experience like? Was it the dogmaticism that made you leave?

    Lastly, you say you’ve ended the discussion about religious persecution/debate. Why then did you post that on Junaman’s site, when it contributes to the debate (and persecution)?

    Reply
  3. Albert,

    As a Christian, I would like to see a defense of those points regardless. I think they would be a beneficial addition to my own apologetic knowledge, and to the rest of your readers.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  4. Albert,

    As a Christian, I would like to see a defense of those points regardless. I think they would be a beneficial addition to my own apologetic knowledge, and to the rest of your readers.

    Thank you.

    GI,

    Thank you and praise God for reminding me that there are indeed believers out there who are reading and thinking about some of the assertions of this site.

    where does jesus get [his authority] saying his followers do not have to fast or follow kosher anymore, or sacrifice to the god who is called i am?

    DR makes three points here. 1) no more fasting 2) no more kosher 3) no more sacrifice, all because of Jesus simply arriving to earth. Outside of number 1, these assertions are simply wrong. The “release” from Mosaic eating habits happened after the crucifixion, because a new covenant was created. See Galatians 5:16-18, for example:

    So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

    We (the redeemed) are thus released from Mosaic Law because we live by the Spirit, not simply because we have been redeemed. I could spend more time on this point, but for the time being, this satisfies points 2 and 3

    As for point 1, I’m sure DR was really trying to reference the violation of the Sabbath, not necessarily the elimination of fasting (ref: Matt 12). From this point, Jesus retells the story of David and his companions who hungered after a battle (v 3-8):

    He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

    So we can see that Jesus asserts he himself is greater than the temple (which, mind you, must have been prepared to the standard of epidemologists), and their reaction is also far from what God desired in the Mosaic Law (which makes DR and the pharisees’ interpretations wrong).

    Moreover, because Jesus is himself God, it is impossible for him to be governed by human laws. Instead, he was the Law, because he himself was the Word (the metaphysical mystery known as John 1)… because he was God, he lived by the Spirit. It’s one of the ways by which he was fully God, yet fully man.

    how come … a woman… is automatically subservient to man (even though galations 3:8 states oppositely that there is no jew/gentile, slave/master, man/woman in god?).

    DR’s first error is that the citation is wrong (maybe a typo). Galatians 3:8 states:

    The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

    The scriptural reference itself is only somewhat correct. It is stated in Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11:

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Gal 3:28

    Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. – Col 3:11

    This doesn’t preclude the fact that all are born with different characteristics, or somehow have magically become all the same. No. Scripture is clear in that we are not a uniform entity once we become purified by the blood of Christ; instead we are unified with a common goal – to speak the Good News. How this manifests itself by the Spirit occurs in different ways.

    Addressing the issue of the male/female dichotomy, although I see this as more of a product of conventions, it does clearly state that man is the “head of woman” (1 Cor 11), which he further extrapolates through use of the Genesis story.

    This doesn’t mean that woman is immediately “subservient” to man, as DR puts it. No, instead the woman has the responsibility of living by the Spirit as well, putting her head into thorough use (as seen especially in the examples of Ruth, Esther, and (in the relatively modern times) John Wesley’s mother) in testing the will of God (Romans 12:2).

    This also has some clear ramifications in the selection of a husband. I heard the saying (through a mutual friend) that the Christian husband/wife should each be searching for three major commonalities in a partner: mental, physical, and spiritual compatibility. It was extrapolated as such: mental is representative of the ability to speak one’s thoughts and have them be understood and agreed to (to an extent); physical is representative of sexual attraction; spiritual is representative of the mutual desire to seek after and worship God.

    It is only after the woman enters into that edifying relationship (marriage) that the woman becomes “subservient” to man (1 Cor 11), provided that the man matches all the aforementioned prerequisites. And while I think this can be viewed, in light of modern (not post-modern) feminism, as more of a product of ancient social conventions, I think the same can be said even today – as the dream of unfettered capitalism is sure to be doomed in the short run, so poverty and its ensuing burden upon widows, orphans, and single mothers will continue to persist. Practicing the love of Jesus becomes central, not optional, in this regard.

    why is he called jesus of nazareth instead of jesus of bethelehem, because everyone either bore the name “x of/from some city” or “x son of y”… studying israeli history shows there is no city called nazareth in that day or age.

    If you’re still reading this, DR, thank you for this question. I was actually not acutely aware of this argument, so thanks for bringing me up to speed. There is a great thread of it over at theologyweb. Galilee was essentially a county the size of Rhode Island that contained numerous cities. “John Powell,” the challenger/questioner who is asking about the existence of Nazareth, cites that 45 other cities in Galilee were mentioned and that Josephus (Jewish historian) had written extensively about the region.

    The corollary is that Rhode Island has 39 cities with a population over 6000, three with over 70,000 in 2004. Now, the page also has a link to “Towns, and villages in Rhode Island with fewer than 1000 residents” which has supposedly been taken down. If my own hometown (Bradford, MA) is any indication, these cities have probably been absorbed into the larger ones for purposes of easier classification, or have undergone substantial growth (an unlikely scenario).

    “JP Holding,” the main apologist in the thread, also critically examines some of the sources who supposedly create a case for such.

    Reply
  5. great stuff.

    i hope you continue to add more material to this site over time. it is very refreshing, and spiritually uplifting, to people like me who thirst for this kind of knowledge.

    Reply
  6. hmm interesting site. Sometimes I just have to go with my strong talk A joke for you! Why do carpenters believe that there is no such thing as stone? Because they never SAW it!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s