The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't understand how this has to do with apologetics. A defense of gospel has to do with arguments for God's existence as represented by the Biblical God. This would narrow the inferences about true religion to Judaism, Islam and Christian. From there one would argue why Christianity's claims are true and Judaism and Islam false.

Your discussion about covenant would best be placed in theology it seems. Secondly there is enormous evil perpetrated by men like David and Solomon, Jepthah was a judge over Israel for 6 years and sacrificed his own daughter to fulfill a vow he made to God if he won a battle with the Ammonites.

The scripture reveals men who represented God and God's people who were murderers, committed incest, adulterers, killed their own children, God commands a few genocides. So it is hardly clear that replying on the character differences of those in covenant from those who are Islamic will lead to much differentiation.

Your claims that Christians are ordered to live very differently as Christians than the Medinan Quran would have Muslims live their lives is certainly true but better placed in an other religions forum rather than apologetics it seems.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1Cor 2:16

I suppose Christianity of old was similar (e.g. Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.).
There was no Christianity of Old which refer to the OT.
There is only 'Christianity' which is related to Jesus Christ as reported in the Gospels only with the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies.'

Those who were involved in the Crusades, Inquisition, and the likes were not wearing their 'Christian' hat but acted as normal human beings via their own free will and for various reasons.
Even if they claimed themselves to be Christian, doctrine wise they were not 'Christians' in that terms of those acts.
Christianity itself did not command them to go to war, kill enemies, commit evil acts like the pedophile priests, i.e. prohibited by the overriding pacifist maxim of "love all - even enemies."

Here is one example to drive the point;
Say take a Bill Gates of Google, who had appeared in TV regularly to represent Google, such that he is called Mr. Google.
If Bill Gates had raped and killed 20 women, we cannot blamed Google because Google would not have approved raping and killing in its Company Constitution.
The blame is on Bill Gates own evil nature not the company he is associated with.

It is the same with Christianity which has an overriding pacifist maxim that command Christian not to kill or harm but to love all -even enemies.
As such we cannot blame Christianity itself if SOME "Christians" decide to commit evil and violent acts on their own free will and human nature.

I hope you get the point. There are pros and cons from the religion of Christianity and the above as discussed is one pro point.

I believe we have spent too much time on this point already. If you insist, you can use your discretion to keep your views that Christianity is evil and violent.

Btw, do you have any views on this;
Buddhism: The 4NT-8FP is Problem-Solving Technique in Life
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand how this has to do with apologetics. A defense of gospel has to do with arguments for God's existence as represented by the Biblical God. This would narrow the inferences about true religion to Judaism, Islam and Christian. From there one would argue why Christianity's claims are true and Judaism and Islam false.

Your discussion about covenant would best be placed in theology it seems. Secondly there is enormous evil perpetrated by men like David and Solomon, Jepthah was a judge over Israel for 6 years and sacrificed his own daughter to fulfill a vow he made to God if he won a battle with the Ammonites.
I don't think apologetics is confined to the existence of God only. Are you familiar with Christian apologetics like David Wood, Jay Smith, Robert Spencer, Sam Shamoun, Christian Prince, and many others whose focus is to counter Islam.
In their discussion with Muslims and the claim that Islam is evil and violent in nature, the Muslims will counter "what about the evil and violent elements in the OT and NT?"

Note if Christianity is being accused on being evil and violent in nature with reference to the acts of 'Christians' in the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, pedophile priests, etc, then obviously a Christian has the duty to defend Christianity against these false accusations.

As I had demonstrated the concept of the covenant [a theological principle] is the most effective to counter the above false accusations.

Note the evil and violent acts in the OT are not relevant to Christianity as Jesus Christ has abrogated these evil elements with the covenanted terms of the Gospels, i.e. the overriding pacifist maxim of love all - even enemies.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Uber Genius
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
There was no Christianity of Old which refer to the OT.
There is only 'Christianity' which is related to Jesus Christ as reported in the Gospels only with the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies.'

Those who were involved in the Crusades, Inquisition, and the likes were not wearing their 'Christian' hat but acted as normal human beings via their own free will and for various reasons.
Even if they claimed themselves to be Christian, doctrine wise they were not 'Christians' in that terms of those acts.
Christianity itself did not command them to go to war, kill enemies, commit evil acts like the pedophile priests, i.e. prohibited by the overriding pacifist maxim of "love all - even enemies."

Here is one example to drive the point;
Say take a Bill Gates of Google, who had appeared in TV regularly to represent Google, such that he is called Mr. Google.
If Bill Gates had raped and killed 20 women, we cannot blamed Google because Google would not have approved raping and killing in its Company Constitution.
The blame is on Bill Gates own evil nature not the company he is associated with.

It is the same with Christianity which has an overriding pacifist maxim that command Christian not to kill or harm but to love all -even enemies.
As such we cannot blame Christianity itself if SOME "Christians" decide to commit evil and violent acts on their own free will and human nature.

I hope you get the point. There are pros and cons from the religion of Christianity and the above as discussed is one pro point.

I believe we have spent too much time on this point already. If you insist, you can use your discretion to keep your views that Christianity is evil and violent.
Yes, the conclusion in my mind is that everyone must decide for themselves what "Christianity" or "Christian" means (it also applies for any other topic, etc.) No doubt those involved in the Crusades, etc. decided that they were true Christians, and would possibly condemn your interpretation as a false Christianity (just as you would condemn them as false Christians, and your interpretation as true Christianity).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the conclusion in my mind is that everyone must decide for themselves what "Christianity" or "Christian" means (it also applies for any other topic, etc.) No doubt those involved in the Crusades, etc. decided that they were true Christians, and would possibly condemn your interpretation as a false Christianity (just as you would condemn them as false Christians, and your interpretation as true Christianity).
Btw, I did not state they are 'false Christians' or make any reference on 'false Christianity.'

I stated when they committed those evil and violent acts [crusades, inquisition, etc.] they are not acting as Christians with reference to the specified act.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Btw, I did not state they are 'false Christians' or make any reference on 'false Christianity.'

I stated when they committed those evil and violent acts [crusades, inquisition, etc.] they are not acting as Christians with reference to the specified act.
"not acting as Christians" = "false Christians", whether in general, or at that particular moment, IMO.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
"not acting as Christians" = "false Christians", whether in general, or at that particular moment, IMO.
False is too strong, thus not appropriate.
Basically they are still true Christians as they had not broken the covenant with God except for a non-compliance of that overriding pacifist term.
A better term would be a Christian-sinner, "self-deceived" or "misled" Christian.

It just like say, an legal American citizen is still an American if s/he had committed a murder or other crimes. We cannot say s/he is a false American. S/he is an American convicted of a crime or has a criminal history.

A false American would be like a non-American forging an American passport and claiming s/he is an American to deceive others for whatever the reason.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
As a non-Christian, they might call you self-deceived or misled about Christianity or Christians.
How can I be misled by Christians or any one when
what I had presented is logical, rational and objectively, i.e. my argument is supported only by verses from the Gospels, epistles, acts and OT.

In exception to the above sources, I brought in the Universal Principles of the Laws of Contract, Agreement, Covenant which is indisputable.

All rational and wise Christians will agree with the OP as it offers a watertight defense against any accusation against Christianity as being evil and violent with reference to the Crusades, inquisition, Salem Witch Hunts and all the evil and violent acts committed by Christians since 2000 years ago.
You may have your reasons for disagreeing to my thesis in the OP.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
How can I be misled by Christians or any one when
what I had presented is logical, rational and objectively, i.e. my argument is supported only by verses from the Gospels...
... by putting aside the "grey" verses (as you put it), and prioritizing other, more preferred verses of your choosing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
... by putting aside the "grey" verses (as you put it), and prioritizing other, more preferred verses of your choosing.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "overriding"??

Btw, the supposedly 'grey' verses like Luke 19:27 are not exactly that grey as explained here'

Luke 19:27 - Scripture Twisting 101

Whatever 'grey' verses there are in Christianity, I noted all they are well defended by the Christian apologists like David Wood, and others.

Besides pros, there are various cons within Christianity, but whatever cons you want to argue against Christianity, your above [Christianity is evil and violent] is not an effective one.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "overriding"??.
I do. We simply disagree on how that love is supposed to be expressed.

Which verses do you believe defines how that overriding love should be properly expressed in a Christian? Is it merely a feeling? Obedience? Walking as he walked?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I do. We simply disagree on how that love is supposed to be expressed.

Which verses do you believe defines how that overriding love should be properly expressed in a Christian? Is it merely a feeling? Obedience? Walking as he walked?
Note the verse that stated 'love your enemies' 'love your neighbors' 'give the other cheeks' reflected 'love' for all human beings.

'love [even] enemies' has to be overriding because if God being all powerful and all-wise condone any killing of humans by Christians that would make God contradictory thus not all-wise.

Note;

The love of Christ is a central element of Christian belief and theology.[1] It refers to the love of Jesus Christ for humanity, the love of Christians for Christ, and the love of Christians for others.[2]These aspects are distinct in Christian teachings—the love for Christ is a reflection of his love for his followers.
Love of Christ - Wikipedia
The above 'bolded' is represented by many verses in the Gospels.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Note the verse that stated 'love your enemies' 'love your neighbors' 'give the other cheeks' reflected 'love' for all human beings.

'love [even] enemies' has to be overriding because if God being all powerful and all-wise condone any killing of humans by Christians that would make God contradictory thus not all-wise.

Note;

The love of Christ is a central element of Christian belief and theology.[1] It refers to the love of Jesus Christ for humanity, the love of Christians for Christ, and the love of Christians for others.[2]These aspects are distinct in Christian teachings—the love for Christ is a reflection of his love for his followers.
Love of Christ - Wikipedia
The above 'bolded' is represented by many verses in the Gospels.
I see "love" as defined in the NT as keeping Jesus' commandments and following his example (John 14:21, John 14:24, John 15:10, 1John 2:4-6, 1John 5:2-3, 2John 1:6) - and his example of love includes rebuke, discipline and chastening (Rev 3:19).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I see "love" as defined in the NT as keeping Jesus' commandments and following his example (John 14:21, John 14:24, John 15:10, 1John 2:4-6, 1John 5:2-3, 2John 1:6) - and his example of love includes rebuke, discipline and chastening (Rev 3:19).
Note I bolded "the love of Christians for others" which is reflected in the main verses related to 'love your enemies' 'love your neighbors' and other verses denoting Christians need to love others.

Even if it is "rebuke, discipline and chastening" it is not committing evil and violent acts [killing, raping and the likes] on non-Christians.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Note I bolded "the love of Christians for others" which is reflected in the main verses related to 'love your enemies' 'love your neighbors' and other verses denoting Christians need to love others.
I have no disagreement with this. "Who should be loved?" - the question you're answering - is not an issue for me. "How should that love be expressed" is, however.

Even if it is "rebuke, discipline and chastening" it is not committing evil and violent acts [killing, raping and the likes] on non-Christians.
"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Num 31:15-18

"one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law ... Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5:18-19

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I have no disagreement with this. "Who should be loved?" - the question you're answering - is not an issue for me. "How should that love be expressed" is, however.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Num 31:15-18

"one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law ... Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5:18-19

Note whatever is from the OT is abrogated by the Gospels, and if where still applicable must be in alignment with the Gospels.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
Therefore, keep the overriding commandments of 'love thy enemies' love thy neighbors, and the likes.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Note whatever is from the OT is abrogated by the Gospels, and if where still applicable must be in alignment with the Gospels.

Therefore, keep the overriding commandments of 'love thy enemies' love thy neighbors, and the likes.
... and, IMO a Christian "loves" by keeping his commandments, which includes his commandment to observe every jot and tittle in the law (unabrogated, per Mt 5:17-19).
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
... and, IMO a Christian "loves" by keeping his commandments, which includes his commandment to observe every jot and tittle in the law (unabrogated, per Mt 5:17-19).
Note the overriding pacifist maxim is objectively stipulated in the Gospels.

It is true, Christians can interpret and act whatever they like, but if they had killed another human or humans then they would have sinned against the overriding pacifist maxim and God being all knowing would have known their sins.

On Judgment Day, God is likely to scold the Christian sinner who had killed other humans, i.e.

God to sinner: What the heck, I commanded you to love your enemies not to kill them!​

Do you think the sinner will answer back to God, like;

Sinner to God: Er .. but God you permitted me to kill other humans in verses, A, B, C, etc.
That would make God look stupid in issuing contradicting statements.

God being all-wise, all-powerful would never have done that.

Thus my point, whatever the 'grey' verses they are overridden by the ultimate overriding pacifist maxim of love all even enemies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Note the overriding pacifist maxim is objectively stipulated in the Gospels.

It is true, Christians can interpret and act whatever they like, but if they had killed another human or humans then they would have sinned against the overriding pacifist maxim and God being all knowing would have known their sins.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see where "pacifism" is claimed to be the overriding maxim in Christianity in their scriptures, while you do.

That would make God look stupid in issuing contradicting statements.
I see many contradictions in the Christian scriptures, which is one major reason I left it.
 
Upvote 0