Why Do So Many Christians Not Understand/Accept That People Don't Hate Jesus?

This is a thread started to discuss why it might be that some Christians create or perpetuate strawmen arguments regarding "hate" towards Jesus.

In the other thread, there's a weird discussion - which I really don't want repeated here as this is more about why that kind of discussion comes about - where a premise or starting point is created but has been shown to be false time and again over the course of many pages by many different posters.

However, for some reason, the same strawman in the initial questioning is being repeated throughout the thread as if the half the posters responses - those that demonstrate the question is a fallacy - are being ignored.

A: Why do so many hate Jesus?

B/C/D/E/F/G: We don't, it's some Christians that are the problem.

H: I think they hate Jesus because (insert specific argument)

I: In my experience they hate Jesus because (insert specific argument)

J/K/L: We don't hate Jesus, it's some Christians that are the problem.

M: The reason for all the Jesus hate is (insert specific argument)

N: If only they could see their hatred for Jesus is (insert specific argument)

O: We don't hate Jesus, it's some Christians that are the problem

P: Their Jesus hate will (insert specific argument)

Why is this happening?

Are a lot of the posters actually on 'ignore' and so their 'we don't hate Jesus' explanations just aren't being read?

Is it that, for some reason, some Christians are misreading or misunderstanding the responses? Despite the point being reasonably well-articulated?

Is it some form of paranoia on their part?

Is their 'Devil' tricking them somehow and either preventing them from reading or understanding the responses or these posts are a 'Devil-laid' 'trap' or a 'test'?

Can they see it but just not accept it? Is it because these responses don't suit some kind of agenda? Maybe it undermines the increasingly common 'plea' that Christians are somehow now the persecuted demographic?

Perhaps any excuse is good enough to talk Jesus-talk?

Any genuine suggestions as to why this might be? I ask as it doesn't seem to be a case of one or two posters not acknowledging the responses, but almost like a unified ignore. I'm not sure whether - at this point in time - I've seen a single Christian acknowledge what people have been saying.

Seriously, I don't want a repeat of the other thread: that particular thread already exists, there's no need to mirror it.

Well, as with many subjects, especially religion, the answer is false dichotomy.


If you don't accept, you deny.

If you don't love, you hate.

If you don't preach, you vilify.


There are many 'non-Christians' who, in fact, really respect and acknowledge the truth in many of Jesus' teachings, but who are also not blind to the faults of His followers:



No, the devil did not inspire Gandhi to say that.

I would like to add:

It does not help when I read Gnostic scripture about Christ and want to share and talk about it with Christians, only to have them call me a heretic and completely disregard what I am saying.

This reinforces the idea that they are (usually) unwilling to accept that someone could like Jesus and at the same time not be a Christian (orthodox).

if I talk about Christ's Words from the Bible, they assume I am a Christian, which is why I use the Gnostic example.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Religion works on the premise if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will start to believe it.I think thats why christians etc keep repeating themselves over and over and over again in threads...just my two shiny pennies.

Here is my unified answer:

Christians see Christ, The Bible, and sometimes The Church. All as ONE unified entity. In that, it is all inspired by God, and integral to each other.

Therefore an attack on the King's men is an attack on the King himself

Non-Christians don't see that unity. We see Christ, The Bible, and The Church, as separate ideas from each other.

If we (non-Christians) make a case against The Bible, it is not necessarily against Christ. Likewise, a case against The Church isn't necessarily against The Bible. We segregate these ideas from each other.

The Christian typically does not. The entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. And the Church is ordained by the Divine. If one makes a case against The Bible, they take it as an attack against Christ himself for this reason.

So ultimately the main reason Christians see so much "hate towards Christ" is that they are thinking like Christians when they evaluate the intent of the non-Christian i.e not separating Christ from the Whole of their faith as a non-Christian does.

In my humble opinions.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

That says it all.
One of the most logical truthful statements ever made.

reply to post by Solomons

---

Almost but not quite true.

Religious practice works on the premise that if you get people to believe in an instantiation of a symbolic system of interpretation, they will cast their actions within a scope that fits within that system. A believing Christian, for example, is always looking to see how their life matches the path of Christ, and that quest causes their actions to both reenforce within themselves that symbolic significance, and makes actions undertaken more likely to fit within and reenforce a Christian worldview, to others externally perceiving. Hence, our illustrious President GWB casts his actions as a battle of 'good versus evil', and Christian congregations feel more content that what they believe is 'right'.

Since so much human soul-searching is spent within these definitions, and personal (though, perhaps, misguided) revelation is often honestly found, who is to say it is a 'lie'?

Truth, beyond undeniable objective fact, is a subjective quantity. At worst, it is an example of illusion, and not a lie, to claim that religious belief is 'false'.


Edit: to add quote to avoid ambiguity.
Edit 2: to water down, slightly, my vehemence, in pursuit of truth.


[edit on 21-11-2008 by Ian McLean]

There are more lengthy explanations to mull over, but I believe that this particular contention boils down to simple semantics. The word "hate" is misappropriated frequently by Christians on this website and elsewhere. The idea seems to be that if your reject Christ, if you actively try to prove his lack of divinity or even lack of existence, if you poke fun at the notion of Christ as the son of God, then you must therefore "hate" him. To nonbelievers, this seems a poor choice of words. It is rare to find someone who genuinely hates Christ or his alleged divinity; in fact, we view him as a merely delusional human or, for some, a fabrication of creative minds. Thus, hatred of the divine son of God would be tantamount to hatred of elves, unicorns, or any other imagined character. We may not like Christianity and its practices, actively attempt to limit its stranglehold on society, or have passionate disagreements with Christians regarding their beliefs, but this does not amount to hatred of Jesus Christ. "Hate" is just an easy and particularly rousing and upsetting word to pin on anyone who disagrees with the idea of the divinity of Christ.


[edit on 21/11/08 by paperplanes]

Well now, you say that you don’t hate Christ but you hate the way many Christians are; however, as a Christian what have I ever personally done to you to make you hate me? Have I sought you out intentionally to ram my ideology down your throat? If you refuse to believe me, did I mount a crusade against you? Did I get together a group of other Christians to protest your threads?

No, I have not…

So, is it fair that supposed Christian haters stretch their prejudice across all Christians based on the actions of the few? It is after all nothing more the prejudice, the same as any other prejudice that exists.

To be very honest, I belong to a very conservative church, who do not engage in the antics of other Christian organizations because we follow what Christ said about teaching:

Basically, this means that if your heart is hardened to what a Christian tells you, it is pointless for them to continue preaching to you, as you will not receive it. Only the Holy Spirit of God can truly convert a person, because only God can affect a person’s heart. With this in mind, what good would it do me to protest you, or show up at your door every Sunday morning?

The groups who engage in this type of activity generally fall into three categories. The Jehovah Witnesses, Independent Churches (cults), and The Roman Catholic Church, these groups pull the antics that you so desperately hate. The only Church historically to ever kill masses of people was the Roman Catholic Church, which is why many Christian Churches, to this day, consider them ”the Beast” of Revelations. Independent churches are the ones who typically pull the other antics like picketing funerals and abortion clinics. Independent churches are often lead by a self-proclaimed minister who has NO seminary training, whatsoever, and usually no oversight from a higher church body. You would be shocked how easy it is to start your own “Independent” Christian Church, and be officially recognized as a legal minister. The Jehovah’s Witnesses can have a whole book unto themselves over their antics, but believe it or not, Agnostics and nonbelievers are not really their target audience. They actually bother people of other denominations even more, in an attempt to argue them over on points of Dogma. They know that people who are already Christian have opened their hearts to Christ, so they target them to switch the style of Christianity that they follow.

At the same time there is a very vocal Homosexual lobby that wish to bash everything biblical because it will never be compatible with their lifestyle. There is also a large portion of people in this world who don’t want to accept anything telling them how to live, or that there can be consequences for their living contrary to it. These groups hatred of Christianity is truthfully more geared at the message then at Christians themselves, because it makes them feel oppressed and/or guilty. IMHO this all comes down to self-worship, self centeredness, the inability to accept any limits to someone’s personal behavior while on this planet. Because Christian values ruled this country for many years, they feel that they need to wage war against Christianity to destroy those conservative values at all costs.

So you say you don’t hate Christ/Christianity, but you hate Christians? I say they are one in the same, with few exceptions, and it’s the message that you truly hate.

I love this quote I think the underlying subjective affirmation of any truth is the most neglected aspect of truth...

And I love your rationale for editing your post

Ahh see but therein lies a problem.

And I illustrated my point in my previous post...

As a non-Christian, I am able to like or even love the message of Christ and not the rest of the Bible. (your counter argument that it is all inspired Word is irrelevant to my belief, as it is not my belief to begin with).

I don't hate the message of Christ (literally his spoken Words). In fact, I readily accept much of his personal message

I strongly dislike Christianity, primarily Christian Orthodoxy. I strongly dislike most of the Bible (save for Christ's part and others scattered throughout). The Gandhi quote reflects my view quite nicely.

Perhaps you're not one of the "many" Christians in this example? Are you judgemental? Condescending? Intrusive with your proselytising? Desperate to turn any and every subject to Jesus?

Chances are, if you're not any of those - and similar - then you're probably one of the Christians that people have no issue with at all and that many irked non-Christians look at and think 'why the # can't they all be like that?'

reply to post by paperplanes

---

Even if you feel that you don’t hate Christ, then as a decent person you should at least show respect for the beliefs of others. Poking fun at something is showing disrespect. Showing an utter lack of respect for something that you know is a widely held, and deeply beloved belief of millions is nothing more then hate. At least have the responsibility to call it by what it really is.

I understand that you feel this way, but I respectfully disagree. I do not accept that beliefs are automatically owed respect, regardless of whether they are believed by two people or two billion people. What is wrong is wrong and a high population of believers does not legitimize an absurdity. While I do not go around attempting to squash the faith of believers, and in fact count many of them among my closest friends, I will not maintain some pretension of admiration for Christianity if pressed for my opinion.

I do not pretend to appreciate or respect or admire the Bible, but to suggest that I hate it would be to mischaracterize my feelings. I do not hate the Bible or any of its characters, or those who believe it to be the word of God; if anything, it is pity that I feel. I understand your hasty presumption but it simply isn't accurate with regards to my opinions.


[edit on 21/11/08 by paperplanes]

The problem that I have with Gnosticism, is that it was clearly rejected by the early Church Fathers, and was shown by them to be Greek Philosophy that was errantly intermixing with true writings. Polycarp was a direct student of John the Apostile, who was obviously a companion of Christ Himself. Polycarps student was Irenaeus, and his first work is called: On the Detection and Overthrow of the so-called Gnosis. So I can understand where trying to relate that topic into Christian dogma is going to cause you trouble. Gnosticism is considered to be a religion that already tried, and failed, to interjects its teachings into Christianity, to alter its message.

I am not saying this to down mouth your beliefs, but simply to explain why you are going to get an earful if you try to inject Gnostic beliefs into a Christian topic. You’re better off to treat it as a separate religion in itself then try and intermix the two.

I hope you have the same responsibility Because that is exactly what you are doing here. Being very insensitive and disrespectful to millions and millions...



By reducing this very serious cultural issue about civil rights down to 'homosexuals simply being upset that Christians don't agree'. Is disrespectful and insensitive... or it is simply ignorant.

Christians are actively voting away their right to marry. Actively teaching their children to fear and view homosexuals as inherently wrong. Christians are progressively anti-gay. I am not trying to open this thread up for Christian versus homosexuality. Just saying you are reducing what the "very vocal homosexual lobby" are actually upset with, and what they are seeking resolution about. So be respectful as well.

**disclaimer: when I say Christians I mean most and not all**

reply to post by paperplanes

---

As a Christian one thing I was always taught was to respect other peoples religions, even if I don’t accept them. I have been in attendance at many other faiths ceremonies over the years, and even though I can only observe them, I still showed respect for their beliefs. One of the biggest problems with the world today is that children are not taught respect for anything while they are still young. Now its cool to be anti-everything, and show disrespect for pretty much anything traditional. Not to hit you with a bunch of biblical stuff, but the bible does explain that the world would be like that in the end times.

Again, you miss the point. This is not about some childish, contrarian position to be "anti-everything" or destroy all traditions. I am not out to wipe out traditional belief systems the world-over, or descrate the private ceremonies of Christians. I never provoke an argument with a believer or intrude upon their worship services. The only time my opinions in the matter come up is when an open debate occurs or I am asked for my particular take on the subject. You seem to be under the impression that any criticism of Christianity equates with pissing upon this all-holy idea of tradition and traditionally held faiths (respect which, curiously, the Abrahamic religions have monopolized for themselves). This is ridiculous. This is not what I am out to do, but I'll step a few feet back so that you can resume the victim's position .

[edit on 21/11/08 by paperplanes]

reply to post by defcon5

---

I know Gnosticism is rejected by Christian Orthodoxy (I alluded that).

My point is, which is inline with the thread topic, is that I don't hate or dislike Christ. In fact, I find Words of his from said gnostic Gospels, and I am excited to share. This implies that I have a vested interest and liking to these Words of Christ.

However, instead of acknowledging my interest in Christ, as such would imply, the Christian (as you just did) typically points out why it is heresy and disregards it.

Your rationale may in fact be that they were not actually Christs' Words to begin with, therefore I was not actually 'liking his words' to begin with. But that is ultimately irrelevant to my point, because I believed it. And this thread is about Christians wondering "why non-Christians hate Christ".

So later when Christians talk about all these non-Christians 'hating Christ', do they factor in and consider the non-Christians who spoke positively about Christ if they used Gnostic texts? I think not.

That is my point about the my Gnostic post. But so you know I read and generally have a vested interest in the Words of Christ from Canonized Scripture as well. I do not hold one over the other as far as authenticity is concerned, nor do I think they speak of a separate Jesus Christ.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice it is not a religion, and does not therefore fall under the same “respect” aspect that I am talking about. The same way that I don’t have to show respect for Chemtrail believers, or the 911-truth movement. That is a social issue, not a religious one. They keep trying to make it a religious issue, because traditional core values of this country were founded on Christian values, which make them feel guilt over their lifestyle choice. Personally I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start bringing their lifestyle into Schools, or attacking Churches then I do care. Why do these folks seem to feel that the rest of the world has know about their sex lives, other then the fact that they want to push it to feel accepted, and shed that “guilt” they feel due to breaking traditional values.

The only reason they have gotten as far as they have with it is because its such a large and vocal group, that started out with the very rich artsy folks. If other sexual fetishes were as well organized then we’d be having S&M, and foot-fetish marches and education in schools. Maybe if the foot-fetish people get a large enough following, enough support, and enough money, they can also prove that its not a “life-style choice” but a “genetic predisposition” as well.


Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. The Church is a private organization who can decide to allow that sacrament or not, accordingly. Marriage has been inherently tied to religion, and not only in Christian religions, since well before the US court system ever existed. Why the US courts think that it is within their jurisdiction to get involved in an ancient religious ceremony is beyond me.


That is exactly what you are trying to do, guilt or shame me into retracting because I singled out the homosexual lobby. Exactly the same way that they guilt and shame folks into attacking religion. We are really getting to the crux of the hate for Christianity on ATS, right here. The reason why there is so much hate on ATS for Christianity is because there is a huge support base on here for the "homosexual cause". Children today are being brought up to show RESPECT for the homosexual cause, and DISRESPECT for Christianity that opposes it.

That is why they lobbied to get religion removed from schools, and why they are now lobbying to get their agenda put in as its replacement.



[edit on 11/21/2008 by defcon5]