On turning the cheek
“It is the attitude of a coward who hopes that by not retaliating he won’t be struck again.
It is this mentality that causes people and peoples to be walked over.”
If a person does submit in the hope of stopping the beating then that might be the attitude of a coward, or it may not, depends on circumstances, it might be common sense.
On the other hand to turn the other cheek in order to show that you do not bear hatred for the person attacking you or to show that there IS another way is an act of great courage and sacrifice.
On Loving the sinner yet hating the sin.
“Where in the New Testament is this stated?
Try reading and inwardly digesting “He sent His only begotten Son”
On our European culture“
One would have to define European culture before that point could be established.
Look around you. Look at our laws, our legal systems, what we recognise as good and wholesome morality, in short, what we are when you take out the toxic invaders from the east.
On earlier cultures and is a Christian based culture superior and the answer yes
“Do you not recognise how arrogant and demeaning to our ancestors that answer is?
That is as may be. On the other hand if it IS demeaning then maybe they deserve to be demeaned when compared with our culture today.
On the acts of butchery and torture committed by Christian men in contravention to the teachings of Christ, and what the Muslims do directly under the instruction and guidance of Mohamed
“You are obviously not familiar with the Old Testament and the savage punishments that are sanctioned by the Christian god in that part of your bible.
In the first place read Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Next the Old Covenant is constantly made appropriate to modern day for Jewish people by the Torah which adopts and adapts the interpretation of The Law, a thing that Islam can never do since it is by its own definition immutable.
On the relationship between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism
“They are both offshoots of Judaism, all three are alien religions to Europe.
Not so.
Islam is better called Mohammedism (though that is a highly offensive thing say to a Muslim) since it is a cult that was invented by him using a pick and mix approach taking the bits he wanted when he wanted them to construct a foundation for the ideology he was inventing.
Try reading the background to The Satanic Verses to get a better picture of the way he played fast and loose with what he wanted and how he dropped it when it no longer suited him.
On the way that Christianity absorbed pre existing religions.
“The same could be said about xtianity. I recommend that you read Charles Morris` Aryan Sun Myths the Origin of Religion and The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James C. Russell. ”
Christianity did absorb pre existing religions as it spread across the globe. It did so in order to remain relevant to people in the countries that it entered but what it did NOT do was to have the existing pagan beliefs form any part of the nature of Christianity nor use them as a goad or whip on Christians.
There is nothing Christian about a Christmas tree and nothing Christian about December 25th beyond being a date that by common agreement would be the day that the birth of Jesus was celebrated.
On whether Christianity is based on the teaching of Christ, and NOT the New Testament
“The New [and Old] Testament is the physical expression of the Word of god and in fact is THE Word of god according to the doctrines of Christianity.
To suggest that the New Testament is not the encapsulation of the Spirit of god is blasphemy according to the doctrines of that religion.”
Take the Old Covenant. In the Christian bible that comprises of the recorded word of God, and a whole lot more besides.
In the New Covenant most Christians do believe that it includes the words and deeds of Jesus and that the remainder is the inspired word of god, but that is NOT the fundamental message of Christianity.
On the conference of Nicea
“And the position of the Christian churches is that the aforementioned conference was divinely inspired along with its decisions regarding which books, gospels and epistles should be included within the canon of scripture-god`s Word! “
The Conference of Nicea has nothing to do with Christian canon.
On the essence of Christianity
“It is a religion that places no qualitative difference between the strong and the weak, the noble and the ignoble, the wise and the foolish. It debases everything that is best in this world.”
Or it raises every man to the greatest height.
On the moral code of Christianity
“It is a moral code that promotes the ultimate failure in man, that promotes the mob above the noble man.
It is a moral code that is alien to the teachings and lore of the Aryan peoples.”
Which Aryan people are these, and what exactly is this “noble man”?
Maybe you might consider the Visigoths as personifying the Aryan people, or the Vikings maybe?
If so it’s worth considering how Christianity moved them from murderous thieving savages to evolve into the people of today, civilised, law abiding, respectful and respected.
On following the teachings of Jesus taking far more strength, boldness, wisdom, and by so doing presenting a beauty to the world than being a powerful brutal cunning poser
Such teachings promote the denial of the Will and the enslavement of peoples.
A people who will not literally fight for its biological survival and biological prosperity deserves to perish according to the cast iron laws of nature.
There’s no denial of will in Christianity. In fact Christianity permits free will and in addition provides a route back from mistake.
Maybe it’s because the morality of the teaching and example of Jesus raises people above the cast iron laws of nature that provides the strength.
That the brute intent only on survival shatters when he hits a solid object, whereas in Christian morality the solid object will also be confronted and if wrong will, over a period of time, be worn away rather than be attacked head on.
It worked in the case of the Roman Empire.
On being an atheist and the perception of Christianity.
“Perhaps you do but you need to recognise that you are drawing inspiration from a work of fiction.”
Is good and sound morality any the less because it comes from a work of fiction?
On Commentaries in general and the “Mathew Henry” in particular.
I am more than familiar with the bible having spent 17 years studying it.
Then why not look also at the work of others who have studied it?
On the principle that Christianity invites and Islam demands.
“If you care to study the history-the bulk of Christian history it too has always demanded!”
Not so. People who followed so varying degrees the teachings of Jesus and especially churches that based themselves on Christianity frequently demanded, but that is categorically NOT the same as claiming that Christianity commands.
Islam does.
On trying to attain the unattainable and shooting for stars rather than remaining stuck in a bog comparing the size of ones muscles with the other reptiles!
“I see nothing noble in dying the death of a thief on a tree.”
As a sacrifice for others, I do.
Leaving that aside the issue is should one try to reach for the unattainable as at least one will go some way towards the best. I say yes.
[b]On turning the cheek being the act of a coward.[/B
]“To what extent will you take this moral code, to the extent of allowing your wife to be raped before your eyes? To be beaten to a bloody pulp? What will make you fight Bear?
Do you not see how ridiculous and life-denying Christianity and all the Semitic religions are?”
LOL! Anyone who raped MY wife better be ready for a long period of hospitalisation being treated for frost bite! As for beating her to a pulp, you’ve obviously no idea just what a formidable woman she is!
Many a person’s looked at her and whispered “Cor! Is that ever a woman!” and not out of desire, but simply as a general question!
But to be serious, no, I would not, but then, I’m not a Christian and my guess is that most Christian people would not do so either.
But that does not mean that if she were a Christian and her husband were a Christian she would want him to intervene, especially if in so doing it placed him in jeopardy.
You see that is the essential element of Christianity. Self sacrificing love.
I really would be interested in comments from observant Christians who might be bothered to have read these exchanges on my Atheist view of Christian principles.
__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.
Last edited by The Bear; 23-05-2008 at 08:42 AM.
Reason: a bit of a tidy up
|