Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Poem]

Brilliant! Your “No True Scotsman” has just declared most Christians in the world not to be Christians. Perhaps you should realise that there is a difference between theory and practice.

Who knows how many are true Christians.

If everyone were a true Christian, everyone would have given everything, including their shirts to the poor.

Jesus was speaking to an individual; why do you infer he was speaking to everyone who isn't poor (whatever that means)?

 

[Poem]

Where do you think antisemitism has it's roots if not Christianity?

Christ gave his followers grounds for antisemitism? Source?

 

[Poem]

Is the Catholic Church Christian, or does running pedophile rings, child abuse centers, and reveling in massive wealth exempt one?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.

 

[Poem]

Just what it says on the tin. People who read the sermony bits of the NT and try to follow the spirit/letter of how Christ acted/wanted them to act. What people ususlly mean by that phrase. As opposed to trying to be a prophet/cult leader and get martyred, that's not what I meant!

My understanding is that it's all about focus - that one does not do any 'good' by one's self; rather through faith...through focusing on Christ such comes.

Romans 4:1ff.
Romans 10:1ff.

As for what that actually means - I'm not totally sure.

 

[Lithrael]

The notion that some here have vociferously expressed that belief in Jesus is somehow akin to intellectual suicide is not supported by such examples. Many consider Heisenberg to have been on the same level as Einstein

I think you've maybe got the objections you're getting here to the apologetic scientists you cite, by the wrong end.

The problem isn't that you can't be a serious scientist and have faith at the same time. Lots of people do that.

The problem is that some things just aren't supported by the facts on the ground. Attempting to support them anyway despite the fact that the sum of those facts conflicts with your religious idea, or to spend a lot of time looking for the spaces in between facts that your faith could maybe still be a little bit true, is letting your faith lead you around by the nose.

I wouldn't be so dismissive if they at least got useful information out of it on the regular, but at this point it's kind of like checking the kitchen for hints of how to achieve cold fusion. Crazier things have happened though, I'll be duly impressed anytime a scientist finds out something neat while attempting to prove faith.

Basically, poking well established knowledge to make sure it's solid is great! Everybody approves. Trying to shoehorn your hypothesis into a hole you crowbarred into some data you gathered, less so. And we can kinda tell by whether it can be built upon or goes on to successfully knock down other assumptions.

That stuff happens in neurology and endocrinology on the regular. We're not mad when established ideas get overturned or rethought, we're mad when cranks try to do it with poor methodology, proving nothing. And the two biggest motivations for cranks imo are Noteriety and Religiosity.

 

[Lithrael]

My understanding is that it's all about focus - that one does not do any 'good' by one's self; rather through faith...through focusing on Christ such comes.

Romans 4:1ff.
Romans 10:1ff.

As for what that actually means - I'm not totally sure.

You'll be shocked - shocked! to hear that I don't much care for Paul's opinions. If I were a Christian, I'd be a Christian, not a Pauline!

He's supposed to be the authority on what Christ wants us to do? He straight up did not even meet the guy. He's getting 100% of his clout from saying he came to these conclusions from revelations he had while he was having a seisure or something. I have no more reason to trust him than any of the numerous others that say the same kind of thing. The standard apologetic for that is, if it wasn't true, it wouldn't be able to get so popular, because Reasons. I do not buy this argument.

 

[Poem]

I think you've maybe got the objections you're getting here to the apologetic scientists you cite, by the wrong end.

The problem isn't that you can't be a serious scientist and have faith at the same time. Lots of people do that.

The problem is that some things just aren't supported by the facts on the ground. Attempting to support them anyway despite the fact that the sum of those facts conflicts with your religious idea, or to spend a lot of time looking for the spaces in between facts that your faith could maybe still be a little bit true, is letting your faith lead you around by the nose.
I wouldn't be so dismissive if they at least got useful information out of it on the regular, but at this point it's kind of like checking the kitchen for hints of how to achieve cold fusion. Crazier things have happened though, I'll be duly impressed anytime a scientist finds out something neat while attempting to prove faith.

Basically, poking well established knowledge to make sure it's solid is great! Everybody approves. Trying to shoehorn your hypothesis into a hole you crowbarred into some data you gathered, less so. And we can kinda tell by whether it can be built upon or goes on to successfully knock down other assumptions.

That stuff happens in neurology and endocrinology on the regular. We're not mad when established ideas get overturned or rethought, we're mad when cranks try to do it with poor methodology, proving nothing. And the two biggest motivations for cranks imo are Noteriety and Religiosity.

I assume you would cite biological evolution* as such an example - which forces most (shall we say intellectual) believers into not taking Genesis 1 and 2 as literal?

I do want to be clear I am correctly understanding what you are saying.


*please - anyone reading this, let's not start the 'you sound like a creationist' thing again.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Christ gave his followers grounds for antisemitism? Source?

He gave them grounds for racism and bigotry towards non-jews if that counts.

I'll get you some verses if you really need them.

 

[Poem]

He gave them grounds for racism and bigotry towards non-jews if that counts.

I'll get you some verses if you really need them.

I think I know where you are going with this - Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[Lithrael]

I assume you would cite biological evolution* as such an example - which forces most (shall we say intellectual) believers into not taking Genesis 1 and 2 as literal?

Sure. There's still a bunch to find out about how evolution works exactly, but we know it happens, broad strokes, and we know a lot of its mechanisms and tools. Noticing weird things that don't line up with the things we already understand, and trying to figure out what is going on, is totally normal science. Doing that and characterizing it as 'turns out the whole thing is on shaky ground' is crank stuff. 'Real' scientists would be super excited and say 'turns out we missed a huge part of this process! We are about to learn so much!'

But you get this in a lot of fields. There are still people trying to prove fossils aren't real or don't mean what we think, people trying to prove man & dinosaurs lived together, people trying to prove a worldwide biblical flood, people trying to prove a young earth, people trying to prove cosmology is a hoax in general because it contradicts what vedic texts say about the heavens. It goes on and on.

 

[Poem]

Yes, die drei K, Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church) was a German slogan used in nazi Germany to describe women's role in society; christianity was an important part of their ideology.

We also know that German school children were taught that Jews were untermensch. This from Apha History:

At the forefront of the Nazi syllabus was racial education, ‘enlightening’ children about Aryan supremacy and the despicable traits of untermensch (sub-human people and races).

Are we seriously suggesting that Jesus would have approved?

 

[steenkh]

Jesus also supported slavery, capitalism, and splitting families. Many sects have taken that last bit very literally, and ostracised family members that were not true Christians™. Amazingly, nowadays few think that slaves should remain slaves, but some sects do not support investing money to make them multiply. Practically heathen, I say!

 

[steenkh]

Are we seriously suggesting that Jesus would have approved?

Isn’t this a case of bowing your head to the worldly power (giving the Romans their due)?

 

[Lithrael]

Are we seriously suggesting that Jesus would have approved?

I feel that way about half of Paul's writing so. I don't know how much 'would He have approved' has to do with practised Christianity.

 

[Poem]

Jesus also supported slavery, capitalism, and splitting families. Many sects have taken that last bit very literally, and ostracised family members that were not true Christians™. Amazingly, nowadays few think that slaves should remain slaves, but some sects do not support investing money to make them multiply. Practically heathen, I say!

You forgot polygamy...King David for example.

It does remain astonishing that Jesus appears to have accepted the prevailing cultural norms.

 

[steenkh]

You forgot polygamy...King David for example.

Well, you are right, some Christian sects support polygamy – if they can get away with it. Actually I didn’t think Jesus specifically mentioned it, and in any case, we start taking the laws of the OT into account, even the True Christians (one of the world’s smallest religions) will disappear into non-existence.

 

[Poem]

Well, you are right, some Christian sects support polygamy – if they can get away with it. Actually I didn’t think Jesus specifically mentioned it, and in any case, we start taking the laws of the OT into account, even the True Christians (one of the world’s smallest religions) will disappear into non-existence.

You are right, Jesus doesn't mention polygamy - but he refers to the OT and in those writings there is zero criticism of David for having multiple wives. In fact, David is described by God as a man after his own heart - who did nothing wrong except for Uriah the Hittite.

Which is when we should cite Jesus's (Mat. 5:28 regarding adultery):
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I've never yet seen a Christian successfully deal with that.

 

[Helen]

Are we seriously suggesting that Jesus would have approved?

Are we seriously suggesting that you have to behave exactly like Jesus to identify, and be identified, as a christian? A huge majority of Germans back then were indeed christian, and many of them committed utterly horrendous atrocities (while others had them committed to them). And I have no idea what Jesus would or wouldn't have approved of, or if he even existed, since it seems that all the stories are second- or third-hand ones.

 

[Lithrael]

Which is when we should cite Jesus's (Mat. 5:28 regarding adultery):
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I've never yet seen a Christian successfully deal with that.

Well I'd need a clarification on the whole preceding 'whole of the law' bit then cause if you remove the source of that impulse as suggested, then according to Deuteronomy you're not allowed to go to church.

It honestly doesn't sound to me like he's doing the metaphorical 'don't forget all of you guys are sinners/won't do what it really takes to not sin' thing either. But if you take it literally you are smack in the middle of doomsday cult material.

'Course, personally, I do think history points to Christianity starting out as a doomdsay cult and kind of evolving from there. Half the earliest stuff is 'be kind to almost everybody and don't worry too much about staying alive'

 

[Poem]

Well I'd need a clarification on the whole preceding 'whole of the law' bit then cause if you remove the source of that impulse as suggested, then according to Deuteronomy you're not allowed to go to church.

I' m a little lost. Some specifics would help.

It honestly doesn't sound to me like he's doing the metaphorical 'don't forget all of you guys are sinners/won't do what it really takes to not sin' thing either. But if you take it literally you are smack in the middle of doomsday cult material.

??

'Course, personally, I do think history points to Christianity starting out as a doomdsay cult and kind of evolving from there. Half the earliest stuff is 'be kind to almost everybody and don't worry too much about staying alive'

As in the OP's Jesus prophecy about his second coming being with the generation to whom he spoke?