"GOP Teens"
GOP Teens
Moons: What do YOU think -.#.Jesus' s
favorite #gun would be? "stil)
763 818
Moons: What do YOU think -.#.Jesus' s
favorite #gun would be? "stil)
763 818
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
185 comments displayed.
#26 to #8
-
endospore (08/10/2015) [-]
Luke 22:36 "And He [Jesus] said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
Not only that, but "Thou shall not kill" is a slight mistranslation by way of oversimplifying a very complicated word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#New_Testament_view
My interpretation is that Jesus is pretty cool with self defense.
Not only that, but "Thou shall not kill" is a slight mistranslation by way of oversimplifying a very complicated word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#New_Testament_view
My interpretation is that Jesus is pretty cool with self defense.
#142 to #26
-
swedishassassin (08/10/2015) [-] 
I'd go with more to saying 'defending the ones you love'. Self-sacrifice would entitle you saying 'hurt me as much as you like; I forgive you', but if someone attacks innocent people around you, you make their lives a living hell of retribution and pain and ******* MERICA!!!!
GOD I LOVE NOT BEING A LIBERAL PUSSY!
GOD I LOVE NOT BEING A LIBERAL PUSSY!
#115 to #26
-
makethingsworse (08/10/2015) [-] Of course Jesus Christmas was an advocate of self-defense. But the question "what would his favorite gun be?" is still ******* stupid. Clearly he wouldn't use a gun. If he had carried something in order to defend himself you think he would have gotten nailed to that tree?
#156 to #115
-
lunacyexport (08/10/2015) [-]
He was crucified by choice. He didn't want to do it but He still did. He even says that he could defend Himself but He didn't.
#51 to #29
-
popeflatus (08/10/2015) [-] He also said that he had come to not bring peace but a sword, or so the story goes. The gospels were written decades after his alleged life and so cannot be considered accurate in any sense.
#53 to #51
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] When he said that he was talking about the people that would 'hate and persecute you because of my name' not that he wanted to go around killing people.
#54 to #53
-
popeflatus (08/10/2015) [-] That's your interpretation. He also says that you have to love him more than your own parents and even hate your family! Then his dad will burn you in agony for eternity if you don't do as he says. That's violence by proxy.
As I said before though: these stories were written a long time after his supposed existence and they become more fantastical with each retelling. There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that he even existed, let alone being the son of the creator of the universe.
As I said before though: these stories were written a long time after his supposed existence and they become more fantastical with each retelling. There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that he even existed, let alone being the son of the creator of the universe.
#55 to #54
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] >That's your interpretation.
That's the pretty broad consensus. He says that He will turn brother against brother. Well, what you just said. In fact that's pretty much what he's saying straight up.
>There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that he even existed, let alone being the son of the creator of the universe.
Yes there is. It just depends on what you qualify as a 'smidgen' of evidence. Hopefully what most expert scholars qualify as evidence would do for you. I mean, he was a 1st century, lower class Palestinian. Not exactly many records of them. Now whether or not you accept the supernatural claims, that's different. But Jesus definetly existed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical
That's the pretty broad consensus. He says that He will turn brother against brother. Well, what you just said. In fact that's pretty much what he's saying straight up.
>There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that he even existed, let alone being the son of the creator of the universe.
Yes there is. It just depends on what you qualify as a 'smidgen' of evidence. Hopefully what most expert scholars qualify as evidence would do for you. I mean, he was a 1st century, lower class Palestinian. Not exactly many records of them. Now whether or not you accept the supernatural claims, that's different. But Jesus definetly existed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical
#196 to #181
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] Yes, one guy, in a washington post article, trying to sell a book has outsmarted the majority of scholars
good show
good show
#218 to #196
-
anon (08/11/2015) [-]
It's not the only source, I had more but it doesn't matter because you already have your mind made up. You do know Wikipedia isn't really a source either? It can be edited to be favorable to one person, or in this case - one ideology.
The bible is a collection of stories that the catholic church hand picked and decided were the best stories to put in the book. There are many more stories left out, and many that were intentionally lost or destroyed.
Even your "scholars" don't agree with one another. Some say he may have existed but was just some poor schmo that did nothing, he may have been an amalgamation of several individuals, or just a simple outright fabrication.
Next you're going tell me many scholars agree the Shroud of Turin is real.
The bible is a collection of stories that the catholic church hand picked and decided were the best stories to put in the book. There are many more stories left out, and many that were intentionally lost or destroyed.
Even your "scholars" don't agree with one another. Some say he may have existed but was just some poor schmo that did nothing, he may have been an amalgamation of several individuals, or just a simple outright fabrication.
Next you're going tell me many scholars agree the Shroud of Turin is real.
#250 to #55
-
popeflatus (08/11/2015) [-] 
He did not necessarily exist, although I'm aware that most historians think that he did. Considering that there is zero evidence for any supernatural claims at all and many religions make these sorts of claims, it's unreasonable to think that this one specific example of Jesus in the Bible is different than any other claim. Anyone can believe in anything and think that it is true. To show these claims is another thing entirely and no one ever has demonstrated and religious claim to be true.
#84 to #8
-
tesforever (08/10/2015) [-] A man slapping another man across the face in public was the highest insult back in those times. "Turn the other cheek" means just that. If someone slaps one, offer them the other. Don't insult back. However it doesn't mean to be a pacifist either. There's a difference between murder, vengeance, and defending yourself. So it means, if you're insulted, don't act out on it in anger, and retaliate with the same action. But still defend yourself if your life is put in danger.
Jesus nor his apostles were against weapons, in the name of defense. The apostle Peter (Simon), carried a sword. Which was the greatest weapon at the time. In John 18:10, he cut off the ear of Malchus, the high preist's servant, because Christ was being taken away.
Jesus nor his apostles were against weapons, in the name of defense. The apostle Peter (Simon), carried a sword. Which was the greatest weapon at the time. In John 18:10, he cut off the ear of Malchus, the high preist's servant, because Christ was being taken away.
#72 to #8
-
venomousvalentine (08/10/2015) [-] what 26 said, and as well as that, guns don't immediately mean violence, some people use guns for recreation...
#157 to #137
-
lunacyexport (08/10/2015) [-]
If you found a bunch of people in your house after you hadn't been home for ages selling things like some kind of garage sale, wouldn't you get upset and kick them all out too?
#159 to #158
-
lunacyexport (08/10/2015) [-]
Yeah but He was still a man. He might have been God and Man but He still had his limits.
#9 to #8
-
clonewarsexplain (08/10/2015) [-]
Well the reason why I asked was because I thought you might say that.
Jesus in the Bible preached peace, this is true. However it was conditional (I'm not referencing the old testament at all here fyi), Jesus preached hatred against the corrupt, Sodomites, Leviathan, murderers, Pharisees etc... The Bible specifically says that for God killing the evil is not considered morally evil, so long as they are evil.
One quote I can think from the top of my head is this:
Ephesians 6 10-13
"Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of His strength. Put on the complete suit of armour from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the World rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the Heavenly places. For this reason take up the complete suit of armour from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have acomplished everything, to stand firm."
In the Bible Christians are allowed to be violent and to shed blood, so long as no other alternative has succeeded. And even then ultimate sinners are to be punished immediately (usury, murder, sodomy etc..)
As some who studies the Bible and is in the process of re-reading it I can tell you. It is not (and Jesus is not) some pacifist peace loving hippy. The recent puritan movement from the 1800s - present may think that to gain popularity in the face of greater knowledge, but they're cherry-picking quite badly.
Sorry to moralize you, but I hope someone else will read this in the comments and understand the Bible isn't as black and white as Church's preach.
Jesus in the Bible preached peace, this is true. However it was conditional (I'm not referencing the old testament at all here fyi), Jesus preached hatred against the corrupt, Sodomites, Leviathan, murderers, Pharisees etc... The Bible specifically says that for God killing the evil is not considered morally evil, so long as they are evil.
One quote I can think from the top of my head is this:
Ephesians 6 10-13
"Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of His strength. Put on the complete suit of armour from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the World rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the Heavenly places. For this reason take up the complete suit of armour from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have acomplished everything, to stand firm."
In the Bible Christians are allowed to be violent and to shed blood, so long as no other alternative has succeeded. And even then ultimate sinners are to be punished immediately (usury, murder, sodomy etc..)
As some who studies the Bible and is in the process of re-reading it I can tell you. It is not (and Jesus is not) some pacifist peace loving hippy. The recent puritan movement from the 1800s - present may think that to gain popularity in the face of greater knowledge, but they're cherry-picking quite badly.
Sorry to moralize you, but I hope someone else will read this in the comments and understand the Bible isn't as black and white as Church's preach.
#11 to #8
-
woodoo (08/10/2015) [-]
I'd just like to point out, i refuse to accept that someone who trashed a bank and chased people with whips because he didn't like that the people inside (the bank) used their money, and cursed a fig tree because it was out of season when he felt like figs, can be said to be "the biggest advocate against violence".
You've got a point though, Jesus wouldn't be for guns, although i don't think he'd be for legislation against guns either.
You've got a point though, Jesus wouldn't be for guns, although i don't think he'd be for legislation against guns either.
#85 to #11
-
tesforever (08/10/2015) [-] It wasn't a bank. It was the temple. It was blasphemous that merchants were in there setting up shops and selling things. They were not supposed to be, This is why Christ went in and drove them out, It was such an insulting situation. It would be like setting up a carnival in a church. It's so disrespectful. And it would be for monetary personal gain, on top of that.
#30 to #11
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] Actually it doesn't say he used the whip
Only that he made a 'whip of cords'
It should be noted that there were a lot of animals in the temple. And how do you get animals into the temple? You whip them. So when the animals saw the whip what are they going to do? Run out.
What Jesus did was nonviolent resistance at its finest there. Overturning tables, driving out the animals [the merchandise].
It'd take a while to get that back together. He stopped transactions of an unjust thing.
Only that he made a 'whip of cords'
It should be noted that there were a lot of animals in the temple. And how do you get animals into the temple? You whip them. So when the animals saw the whip what are they going to do? Run out.
What Jesus did was nonviolent resistance at its finest there. Overturning tables, driving out the animals [the merchandise].
It'd take a while to get that back together. He stopped transactions of an unjust thing.
#31 to #30
-
woodoo (08/10/2015) [-]
From all we know he walked into a legitimate business and proceed to procure a weapon before assaulting livestock(for a whip to work on cattle, you have to use them), destroying private property(turning over tables, pouring out money into the floor), and assaulted the money lenders(chasing someone with a whip constitutes assault in some parts of the world, it might not where you live, but it's never legal). Also, running into a store, smashing a cash register, and chasing the owner out can be seen as robbery even if you don't take the money, so yes, the bible proclaims Jesus a robber. Now, you might argue that they didn't own the building, or had not been permission to perform their trade in there, but the bible doesn't say.
What Jesus should have done was contact the local law enforcement and have this taken care of by the proper authorities.
Also, so he basically deprived them of their livestock and livelihood, and chased them out of the temple with threats of violence, and then casually told the dove merchants "hey guys, don't sell that stuff in dads house, their poo takes forever tow ash out." Why was he so chill to the pigeon merchants? Was he just exhausted from threatening store-owners with a whip?
What Jesus should have done was contact the local law enforcement and have this taken care of by the proper authorities.
Also, so he basically deprived them of their livestock and livelihood, and chased them out of the temple with threats of violence, and then casually told the dove merchants "hey guys, don't sell that stuff in dads house, their poo takes forever tow ash out." Why was he so chill to the pigeon merchants? Was he just exhausted from threatening store-owners with a whip?
#32 to #31
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] > legitimate business
"It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"
Matthew 21:13
>(for a whip to work on cattle, you have to use them
Again, it says nothing about him using it. Only that he did make a whip of cords
>Also, running into a store, smashing a cash register, and chasing the owner out can be seen as robbery even if you don't take the money
That has nothing to do with violence though. Nonviolence doesn't mean submission.
>What Jesus should have done was contact the local law enforcement and have this taken care of by the proper authorities.
Are you dense? the Romans were making money off of this. The Romans would've laughed in his face.
"It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"
Matthew 21:13
>(for a whip to work on cattle, you have to use them
Again, it says nothing about him using it. Only that he did make a whip of cords
>Also, running into a store, smashing a cash register, and chasing the owner out can be seen as robbery even if you don't take the money
That has nothing to do with violence though. Nonviolence doesn't mean submission.
>What Jesus should have done was contact the local law enforcement and have this taken care of by the proper authorities.
Are you dense? the Romans were making money off of this. The Romans would've laughed in his face.
#37 to #32
-
woodoo (08/10/2015) [-]
Did he own the building? if not,t hey had every right to do that, unless the owner of the building had said no. It doesnt matter what jesus thought about what they were doing, if i think walmart is making a house fo prayers a den of robbers, im not allowed to trash it.
>"Again, it says nothing about him using it. Only that he did make a whip of cords"
Yes, I assume they meant it to be read "he made a whip of ropes, (and placed it gently on a small table), before chasing the cattle out with strong words!" Look, why would it bother to mention it if it has no basis on anything later on? Doing so would be dense.
Violence against property is still violence.
It is irrelevant if the Romans were making money or not, if this was legal, Jesus was in the wrong as far as the law was concerned. The sentence i wrote was only about how Jesus should have acted to not break the law(as seen from modern times).
>"Again, it says nothing about him using it. Only that he did make a whip of cords"
Yes, I assume they meant it to be read "he made a whip of ropes, (and placed it gently on a small table), before chasing the cattle out with strong words!" Look, why would it bother to mention it if it has no basis on anything later on? Doing so would be dense.
Violence against property is still violence.
It is irrelevant if the Romans were making money or not, if this was legal, Jesus was in the wrong as far as the law was concerned. The sentence i wrote was only about how Jesus should have acted to not break the law(as seen from modern times).
#38 to #37
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] > It doesnt matter what jesus thought about what they were doing
Well now we're arguing outside christian theology so the argument goes nowhere from here.
Not only that but its a really stupid argument
'It doesn't matter what King thought of whites only businesses, they had the right to discriminate'
>Yes, I assume they meant it to be read "he made a whip of ropes, (and placed it gently on a small table), before chasing the cattle out with strong words!"
No I already said what was going on. animals that are whipped a lot, when they see a whip, they get going while the getting is good.
>if this was legal, Jesus was in the wrong as far as the law was concerned.
Laws are not always just
But like I said you're arguing from outside the confines of theology now so the argument can't go anywhere.
Well now we're arguing outside christian theology so the argument goes nowhere from here.
Not only that but its a really stupid argument
'It doesn't matter what King thought of whites only businesses, they had the right to discriminate'
>Yes, I assume they meant it to be read "he made a whip of ropes, (and placed it gently on a small table), before chasing the cattle out with strong words!"
No I already said what was going on. animals that are whipped a lot, when they see a whip, they get going while the getting is good.
>if this was legal, Jesus was in the wrong as far as the law was concerned.
Laws are not always just
But like I said you're arguing from outside the confines of theology now so the argument can't go anywhere.
#40 to #38
-
woodoo (08/10/2015) [-]
So your only definition of violence and non violence is a purely theological one? As in, since Jesus was theological, everything he did must be good and just and right? Again, what I'm arguing here is that someone who destroyed what, as far as all evidence is concerned, was a legitimate business, because he disagreed with them. This was never a theological debate, Jesus can be seen as many things, some see him as good, some see him as bad, what I'm disagreeing with is calling him "the biggest advocate against violence", as even you agree that he used the threat of physical violence to serve his own needs, is quiet frankly a lie. True, there are more violent people out there, and he can be seen as an advocate against violence, but not the biggest.
#42 to #40
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] >So your only definition of violence and non violence is a purely theological one?
How did you even begin to reach that conclusion? If we're going to argue about Christianity, bible verses, and whether or not Jesus advocated violence, we have to argue under Christian theology: namely that Jesus is the son of God and automatically whatever he decrees is acceptable. Whether or not he sanctions violence is the argument we're having under this theology.
How did you even begin to reach that conclusion? If we're going to argue about Christianity, bible verses, and whether or not Jesus advocated violence, we have to argue under Christian theology: namely that Jesus is the son of God and automatically whatever he decrees is acceptable. Whether or not he sanctions violence is the argument we're having under this theology.
#44 to #42
-
woodoo (08/10/2015) [-]
This started out with me stating that jesus couldn't be seen as the biggest advocate against violence. Thats it. I gave two examples of what can be seen as "violent"(altough, i must admit cursing a fig tree because he was a spoiled brat might not be seen as violent), and you started bringing up theology and theological views on subjective blablabla im too lazy to actually bother to make a rundown of this conversation, you can just re-read it.
And i reached that conclusion because you brought up that arguing the definition of the word non-violent outside of the confines of theology makes arguments go nowhere.
And i reached that conclusion because you brought up that arguing the definition of the word non-violent outside of the confines of theology makes arguments go nowhere.
#88 to #37
-
tesforever (08/10/2015) [-] It was a temple. The house of God. Did Jesus Christ, the son of God, have a right to drive the blasphemous out of his father's house? You better believe he did! It wasn't a bank and they weren't supposed to be selling their wares there. "House of prayer." It was a church. The temple was a church. They weren't supposed to be there. Someone had to do something.
Jesus saw his father's house being blasphemed like that, and of course he did something. The law of men aren't above the law of God. And the selling of merchandize wasn't allowed in church. It was such a huge disrespect.
Jesus saw his father's house being blasphemed like that, and of course he did something. The law of men aren't above the law of God. And the selling of merchandize wasn't allowed in church. It was such a huge disrespect.
#41 to #31
-
vigilantej (08/10/2015) [-]
actually the law owners woudl have sided with him back then it was under jewish law and they where breaking jewish law so he actually upheld the law and basically chased out black market dealers so educate yourself before you spew ********
#246 to #8
-
toaofmemory ONLINE (08/11/2015) [-] Luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
#145 to #7
-
internetnick (08/10/2015) [-]
The guy practically committed suicide with how passive he was throughout his murder.
#149 to #2
-
discobleach (08/10/2015) [-] it's a troll account.
a damn good one. I fell for it mainly because I wanted to believe it was true, though.
a damn good one. I fell for it mainly because I wanted to believe it was true, though.
#139 to #2
-
skullmastersakai (08/10/2015) [-] Sir, I think you just unintentionally started a religious argument
#35
-
DudeBro (08/10/2015) [-]
Jesus was a carpenter..... his favorite gun would have been an actual ******* nail gun.
#36 to #35
-
wertologist (08/10/2015) [-] Well, we don't KNOW that. It seems logical as it would help with carpentry, but maybe, just maybe he was a fan of TEC-9s.
#67 to #66
-
trollmobile (08/10/2015) [-] according to the bible, he worked as a carpenter for quite a while.
#24
-
mcpimpin (08/10/2015) [-] Asking a question like that in the first place is absolutly retarded and then targeting it towards edgy teens? That just spells comedic gold
#18
-
bestestname (08/10/2015) [-] #not #funny #consider #yourself #blocked #why #so #many #hashtags
#21 to #20
-
bestestname (08/10/2015) [-] I was not talking about blocking you dude.
I was mocking the way GOP Teens tweeted, with so many hashtags. My comment was a copy of theirs, but with extra hashtags, for everybody to enjoy.
I was mocking the way GOP Teens tweeted, with so many hashtags. My comment was a copy of theirs, but with extra hashtags, for everybody to enjoy.
#27 to #5
-
endospore (08/10/2015) [-]
He was cool with swords then, why wouldn't he be cool with guns today?
Copying my other post because I always forget how to link comments and no one reads linked comments anyway. Luke 22:36 "And He [Jesus] said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
Not only that, but "Thou shall not kill" is a slight mistranslation by way of oversimplifying a very complicated word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#New_Testament_view
My interpretation is that Jesus is pretty cool with self defense.
Copying my other post because I always forget how to link comments and no one reads linked comments anyway. Luke 22:36 "And He [Jesus] said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
Not only that, but "Thou shall not kill" is a slight mistranslation by way of oversimplifying a very complicated word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#New_Testament_view
My interpretation is that Jesus is pretty cool with self defense.
#28 to #27
-
theluppijackal (08/10/2015) [-] Incorrect. To take Luke 22:36 literally is odd, especially considering two swords was somehow enough for 12.
Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Whats more, Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Seems to me Jesus wasn't 'cool' with swords at all.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Matthew 5:9
So what is it about? Well if you read the next verse
Luke 22:37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
Jesus says the exact reason they need to have swords. To fulfill prophesy. His outcry of 'it is enough' seems to indicate his distaste for these swords
Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Whats more, Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Seems to me Jesus wasn't 'cool' with swords at all.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Matthew 5:9
So what is it about? Well if you read the next verse
Luke 22:37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
Jesus says the exact reason they need to have swords. To fulfill prophesy. His outcry of 'it is enough' seems to indicate his distaste for these swords
#109 to #28
-
youregaylol (08/10/2015) [-] Peacemakers doesn't refer to those who do not fight, but those who bring conflict to an end.
The idea that Jesus was completely anti violence in all cases isn't backed up by scripture at all.
The idea that Jesus was completely anti violence in all cases isn't backed up by scripture at all.
#197 to #109
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone typto, which means to strike repeatedly
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
your siagōn
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html
So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the **** out of you, do not repay him with violence'
Seems pretty anti violent to me.
which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."
"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
your siagōn
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html
So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the **** out of you, do not repay him with violence'
Seems pretty anti violent to me.
which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."
"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI
#199 to #197
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Also I think this ends the debate pretty handily.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matt 10:34)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matt 10:34)
#201 to #199
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] Jesus literally said when he spoke of that he was speaking of the conflict that would arise, those that would 'persecute you in my name'. It was a speech about how his disciples would experience persecution, not that they should go around doing persecuting
It hardly ends the debate. You completely isolated the verse from what was said immediately thereafter\ and are doing a completely shallow reading of it.
It hardly ends the debate. You completely isolated the verse from what was said immediately thereafter\ and are doing a completely shallow reading of it.
#202 to #201
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I just read the entire speech, he was referring to the conflict that would arise in his name, and how children would rebel against parents to put them to death, and how houses will turn against each other in his name. That is conflict.
Do pacifists spread conflict?
Do pacifists spread conflict?
#203 to #202
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] I don't know if you've picked up a history book, but yes, pacifists spread conflict.
zenpencils.com/comic/24-george-carlin-on-assassination-explicit/
zenpencils.com/comic/24-george-carlin-on-assassination-explicit/
#206 to #203
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] the very definition of pacifist refutes that.
"a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
"a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
#208 to #206
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] You obviously didn't read the comic.
The point of my reply is pointing out pacifists are the ones that are often targeted for violence or their followers are targeted for violence
hint hint
The point of my reply is pointing out pacifists are the ones that are often targeted for violence or their followers are targeted for violence
hint hint
#210 to #208
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I did before a while back, its reposted constantly.
We're not talking about if pacifists are targeted for violence, I agree with that, we're talking about if pacifists themselves spread and create conflict themselves.
Spreading a non violent message with the intent and foresight to create non violence is something a pacifist would do, and they are they attacked for it by those who are upset by the message.
However what the disciples were instructed to do was much different. They would spread their message knowing it would cause violent conflict, with children killing their parents and families warring against each other. They knew this would happen, Jesus knew this would happen.
If anything he was spreading a righteous war meant to overturn the establishment.
We're not talking about if pacifists are targeted for violence, I agree with that, we're talking about if pacifists themselves spread and create conflict themselves.
Spreading a non violent message with the intent and foresight to create non violence is something a pacifist would do, and they are they attacked for it by those who are upset by the message.
However what the disciples were instructed to do was much different. They would spread their message knowing it would cause violent conflict, with children killing their parents and families warring against each other. They knew this would happen, Jesus knew this would happen.
If anything he was spreading a righteous war meant to overturn the establishment.
#211 to #210
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] So it's impossible to be a pacifist then, since pacifists spread conflict with their message of 'love your enemies'
Well, debate over then pacifists have never and can never exist.
>If anything he was spreading a righteous war meant to overturn the establishment.
Okay now you're just making me laugh. You're seriously going for the 'Deus Vult' argument?
Well, debate over then pacifists have never and can never exist.
>If anything he was spreading a righteous war meant to overturn the establishment.
Okay now you're just making me laugh. You're seriously going for the 'Deus Vult' argument?
#213 to #211
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Do Pacifists knowingly spread conflict that they know will cause violence? If so I defy you to explain to me why ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists if they never hurt anyone themselves.
Considering that Jesus himself promised a war that would engulf the world and subjugate all the peoples of the earth I do believe that he would support some forms of violence, if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.
Considering that Jesus himself promised a war that would engulf the world and subjugate all the peoples of the earth I do believe that he would support some forms of violence, if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.
#214 to #213
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] How is Jesus responsible for the actions other take upon themselves because he says 'Hey if someone beats the **** out of your face, don't hit back?'
Are you saying God is responsible for evil?
> if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.
Ah yes, the defend my neighbor arugment.
"The third method of answering is still shrewder than the previous one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil is directed against him personally, it ceases to be obligatory when the evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then a Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but is also obliged in the defence of his neighbors, contrary to the commandment, to use violence against the violators.
...
If this important limitation, which radically undermines the meaning of the commandment, entered Christ’s mind, there ought somewhere to be mention made of it. But in all the preaching and the life of the teacher there is not only no such limitation, but, on the contrary, there is expressed a particular caution against such a false and offensive limitation, which destroys the commandment. The mistake and the blunder of such a limitation is with particular clearness shown in the Gospel in connection with the judgment of Caiaphas, who made this very limitation. He recognized that it was not good to execute innocent Jesus, but he saw in Him danger, not for himself, but for the whole nation, and so he said: “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” And more clearly still was the negation of such a limitation expressed in the words said to Peter when he attempted with violence to resist the evil which was directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not defending himself, but his beloved and divine teacher. And Christ directly forbade him to do so, saying that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword.
Besides, the justification of violence used against a neighbor for the sake of defending another man against worse violence is always incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is not yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be greater — whether the evil of my violence or of that against which I wish to defend my neighbor. We execute a criminal, thus freeing society from him, and we are positively unable to tell whether the criminal would not have changed on the morrow and whether our execution is not a useless cruelty. We lock up a man whom we suppose to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with tomorrow this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile. I see that a man whom I know to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and I have a gun in my hand — I kill the robber and save the girl; the robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to me what would happen if that were not the case. What an enormous amount of evil must take place, as it actually does, as the result of arrogating to ourselves the right to prevent an evil that may occur! Ninety-nine hundredths of the evil of the world, from the Inquisition to dynamite bombs and the executions and sufferings of tens of thousands of so-called political criminals, are based on this reflection."
Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
Are you saying God is responsible for evil?
> if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.
Ah yes, the defend my neighbor arugment.
"The third method of answering is still shrewder than the previous one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil is directed against him personally, it ceases to be obligatory when the evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then a Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but is also obliged in the defence of his neighbors, contrary to the commandment, to use violence against the violators.
...
If this important limitation, which radically undermines the meaning of the commandment, entered Christ’s mind, there ought somewhere to be mention made of it. But in all the preaching and the life of the teacher there is not only no such limitation, but, on the contrary, there is expressed a particular caution against such a false and offensive limitation, which destroys the commandment. The mistake and the blunder of such a limitation is with particular clearness shown in the Gospel in connection with the judgment of Caiaphas, who made this very limitation. He recognized that it was not good to execute innocent Jesus, but he saw in Him danger, not for himself, but for the whole nation, and so he said: “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” And more clearly still was the negation of such a limitation expressed in the words said to Peter when he attempted with violence to resist the evil which was directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not defending himself, but his beloved and divine teacher. And Christ directly forbade him to do so, saying that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword.
Besides, the justification of violence used against a neighbor for the sake of defending another man against worse violence is always incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is not yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be greater — whether the evil of my violence or of that against which I wish to defend my neighbor. We execute a criminal, thus freeing society from him, and we are positively unable to tell whether the criminal would not have changed on the morrow and whether our execution is not a useless cruelty. We lock up a man whom we suppose to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with tomorrow this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile. I see that a man whom I know to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and I have a gun in my hand — I kill the robber and save the girl; the robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to me what would happen if that were not the case. What an enormous amount of evil must take place, as it actually does, as the result of arrogating to ourselves the right to prevent an evil that may occur! Ninety-nine hundredths of the evil of the world, from the Inquisition to dynamite bombs and the executions and sufferings of tens of thousands of so-called political criminals, are based on this reflection."
Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
#219 to #214
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I'm saying he knowingly spread that message knowing conflict would arise. Pacifists exist to end conflict, not start it.
No, I don't think hes responsible for evil because it was a righteous message that needed to spread, no matter the cost of violence and conflict. You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.
That paragraph presumes alot, I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it. The bible also lists many, many instances of divine approved defense and war when the ten commandments were in effect, so using them as a justification for no self defense and no war is ignorant at best. Christ even said that he came to fulfill the old law, and the old law approved of righteous wars.
If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple? That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.
Jesus dying was meant to happen, which is why he stopped peter, it wasn't a condemnation of anyone who defends the weak, though jesus was not weak. The evil lies with the sinful aggressor, it always has from the days of the tribes of israel. Yes one can have a change of heart later, but the weak are not that mercy of evil simply because they are good. Jesus did not preach for a world where evil ran rampant with no good to exert itself, we know by what happened with Noah that god doesnt favor that.
That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.
No, I don't think hes responsible for evil because it was a righteous message that needed to spread, no matter the cost of violence and conflict. You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.
That paragraph presumes alot, I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it. The bible also lists many, many instances of divine approved defense and war when the ten commandments were in effect, so using them as a justification for no self defense and no war is ignorant at best. Christ even said that he came to fulfill the old law, and the old law approved of righteous wars.
If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple? That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.
Jesus dying was meant to happen, which is why he stopped peter, it wasn't a condemnation of anyone who defends the weak, though jesus was not weak. The evil lies with the sinful aggressor, it always has from the days of the tribes of israel. Yes one can have a change of heart later, but the weak are not that mercy of evil simply because they are good. Jesus did not preach for a world where evil ran rampant with no good to exert itself, we know by what happened with Noah that god doesnt favor that.
That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.
#221 to #219
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >I'm saying he knowingly spread that message knowing conflict would arise. Pacifists exist to end conflict, not start it.
Again, how is that His fault? How is it His fault people reject Him? Ghandi could've said the same thing, does this make him ipso facto a nonpacifists because he said 'yeah the british will probably start attacking me/us'
>You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.
Their message is of violence.
> I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it
It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what Christ said.
And he said
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197
>If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple?
I never claimed that pacifism meant submission. I talked about how the cleansing of the temple, if taken literally, was a fine example of nonviolent resistance.
>That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.
Again, a pacifist acting peacefully has no responsibility to how the others respond. When Martin Luther King sat in on the whites only restaurants, was he being nonpacifist because the police could've acted brutally and unjustly?
>That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.
>Tolstoy
>Politician
>up started the christian anarchy movement
AHAHAHAHAH
Again, how is that His fault? How is it His fault people reject Him? Ghandi could've said the same thing, does this make him ipso facto a nonpacifists because he said 'yeah the british will probably start attacking me/us'
>You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.
Their message is of violence.
> I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it
It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what Christ said.
And he said
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197
>If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple?
I never claimed that pacifism meant submission. I talked about how the cleansing of the temple, if taken literally, was a fine example of nonviolent resistance.
>That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.
Again, a pacifist acting peacefully has no responsibility to how the others respond. When Martin Luther King sat in on the whites only restaurants, was he being nonpacifist because the police could've acted brutally and unjustly?
>That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.
>Tolstoy
>Politician
>up started the christian anarchy movement
AHAHAHAHAH
#225 to #221
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] It's his "fault" because he knew it would happen. Ghandi is not omnipotent, he did not proclaim to know the results of his actions. Jesus did. He knew there would be death and violence and he did it anyway. Not a pacifist.
Think of the mindset of those times. Someone going forth and proclaiming to be god and to perform miracles such as raising the dead in tight nit religious communities. That is almost a call to war in and of itself, a war on the old way. Heresy.
Paul himself affirms the right of governments as ministers of god to avenge acts of evil.
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."
(Romans 13:3-4)
Jesus follows up on that, and it speaks more to your anti government force leanings.
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
What happened in the temple was not non violent, no more than blowing up a building is non violent. It is a provocation. Pacifists dont purposely provoke violence. Anyone who does is not a pacifist by the definition of the word.
I stand by what I said, he has let his political anarchists views mold his perception of scripture falsely.
Think of the mindset of those times. Someone going forth and proclaiming to be god and to perform miracles such as raising the dead in tight nit religious communities. That is almost a call to war in and of itself, a war on the old way. Heresy.
Paul himself affirms the right of governments as ministers of god to avenge acts of evil.
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."
(Romans 13:3-4)
Jesus follows up on that, and it speaks more to your anti government force leanings.
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
What happened in the temple was not non violent, no more than blowing up a building is non violent. It is a provocation. Pacifists dont purposely provoke violence. Anyone who does is not a pacifist by the definition of the word.
I stand by what I said, he has let his political anarchists views mold his perception of scripture falsely.
#227 to #225
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] So you do say God is responsible for evil then. It's either his fault or it isn't. He can't not take responsibility, but do at the same time because it's convenient for your argument. He speaking specifically of unjust violence very clearly, that christians would be persecuted and killed. So you are saying God is responsible for evil.
"Christian opponents of pacifism cite Romans 13:1-7 more than any other one biblical text to support the moral legitimacy of violence. This text has been used by many Christians throughout history to support the idea that Christians owe their government allegiance, even to the point of obeying the state when it proposes to send Christians to fight wars.
One of the problems with traditional uses of this text is isolating it from the rest of the New Testament teaching. Romans 13:1-7 is treated as if it contains all that the New Testament has to say regarding the Christian attitude toward the state. The New Testament alludes to the state in diverse ways. Texts such as Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; and Titus 3:1 presenting a more positive view of the state. In contrast, Revelation 13; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Matthew 4/ Luke 4; and Ephesians 6:12 show the state in more negative terms."
peacetheology.net/pacifism/9-romans-13-an-interpretation/
Of course you won't bother reading it because somehow, using an external source in a debate is being 'incomprehensible'.
This debate is going nowhere. I'll let you have the last word and we'll end it.
"Christian opponents of pacifism cite Romans 13:1-7 more than any other one biblical text to support the moral legitimacy of violence. This text has been used by many Christians throughout history to support the idea that Christians owe their government allegiance, even to the point of obeying the state when it proposes to send Christians to fight wars.
One of the problems with traditional uses of this text is isolating it from the rest of the New Testament teaching. Romans 13:1-7 is treated as if it contains all that the New Testament has to say regarding the Christian attitude toward the state. The New Testament alludes to the state in diverse ways. Texts such as Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; and Titus 3:1 presenting a more positive view of the state. In contrast, Revelation 13; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Matthew 4/ Luke 4; and Ephesians 6:12 show the state in more negative terms."
peacetheology.net/pacifism/9-romans-13-an-interpretation/
Of course you won't bother reading it because somehow, using an external source in a debate is being 'incomprehensible'.
This debate is going nowhere. I'll let you have the last word and we'll end it.
#238 to #227
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] No, you're using people interpreting quotes, thats much different.
And that is a prophecy, is it not? I thought you said we need not worry about the way things would work in the ends times during the second coming? Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible. Regardless we're getting off topic.
You follow scripture except for the verses calling government ministers of god who bear swords with the right to avenge evil acts. Gotcha.
I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.
And that is a prophecy, is it not? I thought you said we need not worry about the way things would work in the ends times during the second coming? Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible. Regardless we're getting off topic.
You follow scripture except for the verses calling government ministers of god who bear swords with the right to avenge evil acts. Gotcha.
I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.
#242 to #238
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] Acts isn't a prophecy. Acts is what happened immediately after Jesus died...
> Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible.
Yeah, I just said I wouldn't want that. When I say democratic, I mean 100% consensus man. Not a 4:5 split. Though I can understand the misunderstanding
>I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.
Yeah our debate got split off into like 4 different chains. Forgive me, at 2am I need a refresher. Which ones are you referring to?
> Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible.
Yeah, I just said I wouldn't want that. When I say democratic, I mean 100% consensus man. Not a 4:5 split. Though I can understand the misunderstanding
>I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.
Yeah our debate got split off into like 4 different chains. Forgive me, at 2am I need a refresher. Which ones are you referring to?
#233 to #227
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I doubt you are considering you're literally getting all your arguments from a group that has to argue around scripture to fit their political views.
The scripture is what decides what is christain or not, not how people who say they are christains act. Also its up for debate on whether they were truly pacifist or not.
That quote is more about humility than being anti military. According to you that verse would also mean that we should demolish government and currency said he decided to live humbly, though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.
Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.
They aren't sound theological positions because they contradict the word of god directly. You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.
To me that is the epitome of being an ideologue over being a christian.
The scripture is what decides what is christain or not, not how people who say they are christains act. Also its up for debate on whether they were truly pacifist or not.
That quote is more about humility than being anti military. According to you that verse would also mean that we should demolish government and currency said he decided to live humbly, though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.
Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.
They aren't sound theological positions because they contradict the word of god directly. You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.
To me that is the epitome of being an ideologue over being a christian.
#239 to #233
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] Also, you misunderstand tolstoys position. His anarchy does not overtake his pacifism. He calls to refuse to serve government, but yes submit to them since it's difficult/impossible to resist governments nonviolently.
His anarchy stems mostly from his nonviolence. He in no way contradicts the call to submit to governing authorities.
Don't talk and presume about things you know nothing about
His anarchy stems mostly from his nonviolence. He in no way contradicts the call to submit to governing authorities.
Don't talk and presume about things you know nothing about
#235 to #233
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >I doubt you are considering you're literally getting all your arguments from a group that has to argue around scripture to fit their political views.
I'm using quotes. That's not bad fashion in a debate.
>though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.
I'm not a Christian anarchist, I'm a christian. At that, no, I don't buy Tolstoys ideological claims of anarchy. I consider myself a socialist, more or less. So long as that socialism was decided democratically. Though I do acknowledge the impracticality of implementing it, it is possible.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35
>Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.
Yeah, funny. I follow scripture. I love my enemies and do not take up a sword
>You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.
Yeah, if you're going to state the question as 'spin' then I don't have to answer. By default even fi I answer you're accusing me of 'spin'
But I'll bite. Which passages specifically?
I'm using quotes. That's not bad fashion in a debate.
>though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.
I'm not a Christian anarchist, I'm a christian. At that, no, I don't buy Tolstoys ideological claims of anarchy. I consider myself a socialist, more or less. So long as that socialism was decided democratically. Though I do acknowledge the impracticality of implementing it, it is possible.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35
>Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.
Yeah, funny. I follow scripture. I love my enemies and do not take up a sword
>You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.
Yeah, if you're going to state the question as 'spin' then I don't have to answer. By default even fi I answer you're accusing me of 'spin'
But I'll bite. Which passages specifically?
#243 to #233
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I presume to know scripture, I don't need to know anything about that man to understand the bible. Perhaps you do.
#229 to #227
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said at the beginning that I didn't think spreading that message knowing it would cause conflict is evil because it needed to be done. It was a righteous message that needed to be spread, no matter the violence or conflict.
Basically the person you're quoting can't dismiss or spin that very direct quote from Jesus and Paul so they disregard it by bringing up verses describing the anti christ(because since the anti Christ will use government that makes all government evil despite what jesus said), how rulers at the time do not know the true wisdom of god (nobody does, so therefor nobody is just apparently), how one should worship jesus and not the devil, and of the eventual struggle against the anti christ.
Very, very poor reasoning to dismiss these valuable quotes that get to the heart of the argument.
I suggest you stop getting all your biblical positions from that website and anarchist/pacifists and get it from the bible instead. You're letting your political ideology influence your religious perception.
Basically the person you're quoting can't dismiss or spin that very direct quote from Jesus and Paul so they disregard it by bringing up verses describing the anti christ(because since the anti Christ will use government that makes all government evil despite what jesus said), how rulers at the time do not know the true wisdom of god (nobody does, so therefor nobody is just apparently), how one should worship jesus and not the devil, and of the eventual struggle against the anti christ.
Very, very poor reasoning to dismiss these valuable quotes that get to the heart of the argument.
I suggest you stop getting all your biblical positions from that website and anarchist/pacifists and get it from the bible instead. You're letting your political ideology influence your religious perception.
#230 to #229
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >Implying I was a pacifist before I read the bible
>implying I didn't totally believe intervention wars were justified
I am getting my political positions from the bible. Are you?
The earliest church fathers were pacifists. Were they magically influenced by anarchists that didn't exist yet?
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html
I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.
—Tatian’s Address to the Greeks 11
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm
An entire treatsy forbidding military service by one of the earliest Christian authors
One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.
Lactantius agreed: “A just man may not be a soldier” (Divine Institutes, 6.20).
And yeah, you got me to reply. I can take a lot of things. I can't take you implying that these aren't sound theological positions, as though I pulled 'love your enemies' out of my own butt.
>implying I didn't totally believe intervention wars were justified
I am getting my political positions from the bible. Are you?
The earliest church fathers were pacifists. Were they magically influenced by anarchists that didn't exist yet?
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html
I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.
—Tatian’s Address to the Greeks 11
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm
An entire treatsy forbidding military service by one of the earliest Christian authors
One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.
Lactantius agreed: “A just man may not be a soldier” (Divine Institutes, 6.20).
And yeah, you got me to reply. I can take a lot of things. I can't take you implying that these aren't sound theological positions, as though I pulled 'love your enemies' out of my own butt.
#205 to #203
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Someone claiming to be a pacifist does not make them a pacifist, sorry.
#198 to #197
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Yet he advised his followers to be armed
"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36)
He also committed violence himself
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).
"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).
"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).
And of coursed promised violent vengeance
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords."
(Rev 19:11-16)
"and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels."
(2 Thessalonians 1:7)
Could you imagine a pacifist saying and doing any of these things? I can't.
"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36)
He also committed violence himself
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).
"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).
"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).
And of coursed promised violent vengeance
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords."
(Rev 19:11-16)
"and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels."
(2 Thessalonians 1:7)
Could you imagine a pacifist saying and doing any of these things? I can't.
#200 to #198
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >Luke 22:36
Did you not tread the passages immediately thereafter?
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Luke 22:37-38
If he was telling his followers to literally be armed why is two swords enough for 12?
>Matthew 21:12
Actually it says nothing of Jesus violence against them, only that he drove them out. Dunno bout you but if a guy came in and started overturning tables I'd get out while the getting was good
www.academia.edu/1563662/Violence_Nonviolence_and_the_Temple_Incident_in_John_2_13-15
At that, the older interpretation, traditional of the passage is nonviolent
>Rev 19:11-16
The second coming is irrelevant to how He teaches us to live now. We'll be vegans in the second coming. Are you vegan?
Issiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
Isiah 11:7
The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox.
Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.
We'll also not be married in the second coming, people are still going around getting married
>(2 Thessalonians 1:7)
Oh come now, even you must admit the blazing fire is obviously being poetic.
Did you not tread the passages immediately thereafter?
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Luke 22:37-38
If he was telling his followers to literally be armed why is two swords enough for 12?
>Matthew 21:12
Actually it says nothing of Jesus violence against them, only that he drove them out. Dunno bout you but if a guy came in and started overturning tables I'd get out while the getting was good
www.academia.edu/1563662/Violence_Nonviolence_and_the_Temple_Incident_in_John_2_13-15
At that, the older interpretation, traditional of the passage is nonviolent
>Rev 19:11-16
The second coming is irrelevant to how He teaches us to live now. We'll be vegans in the second coming. Are you vegan?
Issiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
Isiah 11:7
The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox.
Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.
We'll also not be married in the second coming, people are still going around getting married
>(2 Thessalonians 1:7)
Oh come now, even you must admit the blazing fire is obviously being poetic.
#204 to #200
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Why have any sword at all, if he indeed was a pacifist? Does every man have to be armed for self defense, or just a few? (police, military, ect)
I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.
Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?
So you think the second coming is poetic or do you think hes literal? Because I fail to see how that entire paragraph can be anything but literal.
I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.
Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?
So you think the second coming is poetic or do you think hes literal? Because I fail to see how that entire paragraph can be anything but literal.
#207 to #204
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] He said why immediately thereafter
>It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
To fulfill the prophesy
>I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.
Destroying merchandise is actually great nonviolence resistance. you aren't harming individuals, but you are disrupting what you consider an unjust process. Whatever the authorities may say about it is irrelevant.
>Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?
Again, the second coming is irrelevant to now
But if you must
peacetheology.net/the-book-of-revelation/articles-on-revelation/biblical-apocalyptic-what-is-being-revealed/
>It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
To fulfill the prophesy
>I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.
Destroying merchandise is actually great nonviolence resistance. you aren't harming individuals, but you are disrupting what you consider an unjust process. Whatever the authorities may say about it is irrelevant.
>Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?
Again, the second coming is irrelevant to now
But if you must
peacetheology.net/the-book-of-revelation/articles-on-revelation/biblical-apocalyptic-what-is-being-revealed/
#209 to #207
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Are you referring to the cut off ear? Why two swords then, why not one? And Jesus seemed pretty upset when his follower did attack, it didn't seem like he wanted it to happen, and it didn't really change anything, he had already healed many, many people before that.
The legal definition of violence
"the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."
You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.
What we do on earth is meant to prepare us for the afterlife and the second coming, is it not? Seems very strange that Jesus would be a pacifist yet advocate violence as the final solution to the worlds sin.
I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.
The legal definition of violence
"the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."
You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.
What we do on earth is meant to prepare us for the afterlife and the second coming, is it not? Seems very strange that Jesus would be a pacifist yet advocate violence as the final solution to the worlds sin.
I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.
#212 to #209
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] Explain to me first how two swords is enough for 12 people, then I'll explain why 2 swords is enough to fulfill the prophesy
>You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.
So do you have no King except Caesar? Is your authority Caesar? Because my authority certainly isn't.
Once again your interpretation is rather shallow.
"Not only the complete misunderstanding of Christ's teaching, but also a complete unwillingness to understand it could have admitted that striking misinterpretation, according to which the words, "To Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's," signify the necessity of obeying Cæsar. In the first place, there is no mention there of obedience; in the second place, if Christ recognized the obligatoriness of paying tribute, and so of obedience, He would have said directly, "Yes, it should be paid;" but He says, "Give to Cæsar what is his, that is, the money, and give your life to God," and with these latter words He not only does not encourage any obedience to power, but, on the contrary, points out that in everything which belongs to God it is not right to obey Cæsar"
-Leo Tolstoy
>I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.
You can't arbitrarily restrict how I can answer your questions. We call that moving the goalpost. Many others have answered, that was just a convenient link.
>You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.
So do you have no King except Caesar? Is your authority Caesar? Because my authority certainly isn't.
Once again your interpretation is rather shallow.
"Not only the complete misunderstanding of Christ's teaching, but also a complete unwillingness to understand it could have admitted that striking misinterpretation, according to which the words, "To Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's," signify the necessity of obeying Cæsar. In the first place, there is no mention there of obedience; in the second place, if Christ recognized the obligatoriness of paying tribute, and so of obedience, He would have said directly, "Yes, it should be paid;" but He says, "Give to Cæsar what is his, that is, the money, and give your life to God," and with these latter words He not only does not encourage any obedience to power, but, on the contrary, points out that in everything which belongs to God it is not right to obey Cæsar"
-Leo Tolstoy
>I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.
You can't arbitrarily restrict how I can answer your questions. We call that moving the goalpost. Many others have answered, that was just a convenient link.
#216 to #212
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I did, you only need two swords to defend a group, not everyone needs to be armed, which I think Jesus was trying to say. He's okay with defense, but hes not okay with being obsessed with unjustified conflict or war, therefor he didn't want to be walking around with an army, he was peaceful, but not a pacifist.
God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course. That is what Render unto Caesar means, give government what belongs to government, and give god what belongs to god.
You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward. Bu acknowledging that Caesar is owed taxes he is acknowledging his authority over the government of the land. That does not mean everything belongs to Caesar, but what does belong to Caesar is his.
And no, moving the goal posts isn't a clever defense that absolves you from defending your positions. I could spam 25 wikipedia links right now and not say a word, would you be moving the goal posts If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible? I'm arguing with you, not your links.
God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course. That is what Render unto Caesar means, give government what belongs to government, and give god what belongs to god.
You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward. Bu acknowledging that Caesar is owed taxes he is acknowledging his authority over the government of the land. That does not mean everything belongs to Caesar, but what does belong to Caesar is his.
And no, moving the goal posts isn't a clever defense that absolves you from defending your positions. I could spam 25 wikipedia links right now and not say a word, would you be moving the goal posts If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible? I'm arguing with you, not your links.
#217 to #216
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] You think its what he's trying to say, despite the fact that he immediately said thereafter they needed swords to fulfill scripture? Odd. You seem to know more about what he's saying than Jesus himself does.
>You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward.
So straightforward that interpretations vary wildly.
> to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course
Precisely my point. If Caeser calls to me to fight in war, I must refuse. As it is written 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherent the Earth'. If Ceasar wishes to collect taxes from me, I must submit, since its highly unlikely I can refuse to pay taxes without resorting to the sword.
> If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible?
I am being specific and comprehensible. It's a full explanation to a pacifist interpretation of Revelation. As I said, at that, the second coming has nothing to do with now. you don't follow OT many laws do you? Likewise, revelation is not for today. It is for the hour that even Jesus doesn't know.
>You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward.
So straightforward that interpretations vary wildly.
> to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course
Precisely my point. If Caeser calls to me to fight in war, I must refuse. As it is written 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherent the Earth'. If Ceasar wishes to collect taxes from me, I must submit, since its highly unlikely I can refuse to pay taxes without resorting to the sword.
> If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible?
I am being specific and comprehensible. It's a full explanation to a pacifist interpretation of Revelation. As I said, at that, the second coming has nothing to do with now. you don't follow OT many laws do you? Likewise, revelation is not for today. It is for the hour that even Jesus doesn't know.
#220 to #217
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Point to where he says the only reason he advocated they bring "two" swords (still strange how they needed two when only one was needed to cut an ear off) is because he wanted peter to cut someones ear off.
Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days. I imagine there are some that when reading Jesus say "The ocean is blue" would state that Jesus thinks the ocean is yellow.
Meekness can easily mean having humility in oneself, it doesn't outright mean pacifist. God has always valued warriors.
But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence? And do you disavow the The Ten Commandments? Are you not bound by any law that Jesus himself did not say?
Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days. I imagine there are some that when reading Jesus say "The ocean is blue" would state that Jesus thinks the ocean is yellow.
Meekness can easily mean having humility in oneself, it doesn't outright mean pacifist. God has always valued warriors.
But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence? And do you disavow the The Ten Commandments? Are you not bound by any law that Jesus himself did not say?
#224 to #220
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] also they didn't bring two. Two happen to be there at the house
#223 to #220
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >Point to where he says the only reason he advocated they bring "two" swords (still strange how they needed two when only one was needed to cut an ear off) is because he wanted peter to cut someones ear off.
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
He literally said it immediately thereafter sooooooo
>Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days.
I know. How funny. Love your enemies. Do not repay evil with evil. Blessed are the peacemakers [not warmakers]. So straight forward. 'BUT HE TOTALLY WASN'T A PACIFIST'
>But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence?
Again, that's if you take Revelation literally.
But as I said, we are living under new laws. The OT was the rule of law and order. Now we are living under the rule of grace and nonviolence. What laws will come [again I point to the fact that we'll be vegetarians in the second coming] hold no weight to the laws we have now.
"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
He literally said it immediately thereafter sooooooo
>Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days.
I know. How funny. Love your enemies. Do not repay evil with evil. Blessed are the peacemakers [not warmakers]. So straight forward. 'BUT HE TOTALLY WASN'T A PACIFIST'
>But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence?
Again, that's if you take Revelation literally.
But as I said, we are living under new laws. The OT was the rule of law and order. Now we are living under the rule of grace and nonviolence. What laws will come [again I point to the fact that we'll be vegetarians in the second coming] hold no weight to the laws we have now.
"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI
#226 to #223
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] The prophecy of the transgressors coming for him was being fulfilled, nothing in that implies that he wanted them to have swords to cut off peoples ears. If that was the point he would've just told them to get rid of the extra sword. Besides cutting off the ear of the guard had nothing to do with him being killed on the cross, it was just a miracle he performed, and he already performed many other miracles not having to do with prophecy.
I've already given you many passages that show he wasn't a pacifist so I can say the same to you.
Are you only bound by the laws that Jesus said?
What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it? Saying it doesn't apply to you at all after that is a bit hypocritical considering you're so angered by people denying the "fact" that he was pacifist.
I've already given you many passages that show he wasn't a pacifist so I can say the same to you.
Are you only bound by the laws that Jesus said?
What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it? Saying it doesn't apply to you at all after that is a bit hypocritical considering you're so angered by people denying the "fact" that he was pacifist.
#228 to #226
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] >I've already given you many passages that show he wasn't a pacifist so I can say the same to you.
you've shown me faulty interpretations that completely isolate the passages.
>What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it
that the prophesy would be fulfilled.
you've shown me faulty interpretations that completely isolate the passages.
>What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it
that the prophesy would be fulfilled.
#231 to #228
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I just gave you three passages in their complete form that addresses the entire argument and your response was to copy and paste a paragraph of someone quoting vague out of context supposedly anti government passages (i read all of them and none of them refute what was said) when they admittedly can't spin or disregard those verses.
So the law was destroyed when jesus died on the cross? The 10 commandments doesn't apply to you? So what does, just what Jesus said specifically? If jesus didn't mention giving false testimony could you give false testimony and not sin?
So the law was destroyed when jesus died on the cross? The 10 commandments doesn't apply to you? So what does, just what Jesus said specifically? If jesus didn't mention giving false testimony could you give false testimony and not sin?
#232 to #231
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] The link provides the entire essay. That was just the header. I highly doubt you read the whole essay.
They don't 'spin or disregard them'
But I've grown weary of this debate.
They don't 'spin or disregard them'
But I've grown weary of this debate.
#247 to #232
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I cant see anyway they could mean anything else. If theres something that contradicts it present it, but not the verses you've already presented that supposedly contradict it because I've already addressed those.
I do not know what you define as a "serious beating", but your jawbone can be slapped the same as any other. Even still I take the fact that you literally turn the other cheek as a sign about forgiveness to an insult.
If your brother was in the middle of raping and murdering your sisters, and the only way to prevent their deaths would be to take his life, would you stop loving him simply because he needed to be stopped? You say you're a socialist so I'm assuming you support some type of police. If an officer has to take a mans life to save 10's or even hundreds, does that mean he hates the man?
Love can exist with duty.
I do not know what you define as a "serious beating", but your jawbone can be slapped the same as any other. Even still I take the fact that you literally turn the other cheek as a sign about forgiveness to an insult.
If your brother was in the middle of raping and murdering your sisters, and the only way to prevent their deaths would be to take his life, would you stop loving him simply because he needed to be stopped? You say you're a socialist so I'm assuming you support some type of police. If an officer has to take a mans life to save 10's or even hundreds, does that mean he hates the man?
Love can exist with duty.
#248 to #247
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] I already said. The literal definition of typto means repeated beatings. Not some light slap. The original greek is a much more violent thrashing, not some 'slap'. how do you respond?
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
The definition even explicitly mentions it would mean more than one blow.
In the case of hypothetical evil v. actual evil, go with the hypothetical evil.
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
The definition even explicitly mentions it would mean more than one blow.
In the case of hypothetical evil v. actual evil, go with the hypothetical evil.
#241 to #232
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] Please, lets not pretend I asked you to copy and paste an entire essay, you could easily just copy and paste the passages that somehow interpret or change the meaning of those passages, like you did before. I'm thinking the reason you still don't is because you know that the reasons given are weak at best.
You've read all this stuff before yet you still can't find a reason why these verses are misinterpreted or invalid somehow?
You're flipping the argument towards me so you don't have to answer the question, but I'll bite. I have no problem with the love your enemy passage, it doesn't conflict with my views. I can love the sinner but that does not mean I have to let him prey on me and the weak. In fact it is my duty to confront evil. Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.
If I respond to an insult by destroying that sinner I wouldn't be just. However, evil cannot be allowed to subjugate the good, like in the days of Noah, which is why god has said that his ministers have the right to use their swords they bear to avenge evil.
You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.
You've read all this stuff before yet you still can't find a reason why these verses are misinterpreted or invalid somehow?
You're flipping the argument towards me so you don't have to answer the question, but I'll bite. I have no problem with the love your enemy passage, it doesn't conflict with my views. I can love the sinner but that does not mean I have to let him prey on me and the weak. In fact it is my duty to confront evil. Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.
If I respond to an insult by destroying that sinner I wouldn't be just. However, evil cannot be allowed to subjugate the good, like in the days of Noah, which is why god has said that his ministers have the right to use their swords they bear to avenge evil.
You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.
#245 to #241
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] It's really long. This isn't some simple explanation because you're right, they SEEM striaghtforward, even if they directly contradict was what said in the chapter immediately previously.
>Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.
Except the original greek does not talk about a slap, it talks about 'typto' which is a serious beating to your 'saigon' which is your jawbone.
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197
>You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.
Yeah, based upon your interpretation. Forgive me, but loving your enemies makes killing them mutually exclusive in my view.
>Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.
Except the original greek does not talk about a slap, it talks about 'typto' which is a serious beating to your 'saigon' which is your jawbone.
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197
>You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.
Yeah, based upon your interpretation. Forgive me, but loving your enemies makes killing them mutually exclusive in my view.
#234 to #232
-
youregaylol (08/11/2015) [-] I read the quote you gave me. If there was something else that somehow makes those verses invalid you should've said it. The fact that you still haven't said it makes me believe you don't know yourself, which really just hammers in my point.
Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?
That is putting your ideology ahead of the scripture and your religion.
Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?
That is putting your ideology ahead of the scripture and your religion.
#236 to #234
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] I linked the entire essay
I can't copy paste an entire essay with a 400 character limit. But using essays is being 'incomprehensible' according to you.
>Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?
Not immediately. this is stuff I've been thinking about and reading for years. I've read all this stuff before. I'm not just googling it randomly.
Why would you read 'love your enemies' and immediately find a passage that makes you more comfortable? Why would you read 'if someone is beating your face do not repay with violence' and immediately search for an isolated verse to make is obsolete? That putting your comfort ahead of your religion.
I can't copy paste an entire essay with a 400 character limit. But using essays is being 'incomprehensible' according to you.
>Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?
Not immediately. this is stuff I've been thinking about and reading for years. I've read all this stuff before. I'm not just googling it randomly.
Why would you read 'love your enemies' and immediately find a passage that makes you more comfortable? Why would you read 'if someone is beating your face do not repay with violence' and immediately search for an isolated verse to make is obsolete? That putting your comfort ahead of your religion.
#249 to #109
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] I'll reply up here. I already replied to your romans, you just refuse to read the essay. you only replied to the header.
Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
Yeah, as for that, you presume that violence can be good, which you have yet to prove in my view. Jesus talks about being good to your enemies and praying for them. Sooooo
As for the middle one, the answer is something you've already said. We are called to submit to them in good and righteous things. However we are to steadfast refuse in the case where God takes priority. For example, should I 'submit' if the ruler commands me to kill a child? Should I 'submit' that abortion is legal?
You've already said we shouldn't submit in the case where they are unrighteous and try to triumph God.
>God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course.
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/216#216
Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)
Yeah, as for that, you presume that violence can be good, which you have yet to prove in my view. Jesus talks about being good to your enemies and praying for them. Sooooo
As for the middle one, the answer is something you've already said. We are called to submit to them in good and righteous things. However we are to steadfast refuse in the case where God takes priority. For example, should I 'submit' if the ruler commands me to kill a child? Should I 'submit' that abortion is legal?
You've already said we shouldn't submit in the case where they are unrighteous and try to triumph God.
>God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course.
/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/216#216
#94 to #89
-
iatedub (08/10/2015) [-] Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.
As for theluppijackal who doesn't understand a ******* thing nor does he look into the context
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped
As for theluppijackal who doesn't understand a ******* thing nor does he look into the context
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped
#105 to #94
-
xblthatguy (08/10/2015) [-] Exodus is old testament, as you know. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law.
You speak ill of my brother, friend.
You are correct. Peter was acting unwisely.
Jesus sent out groups of two to spread the word, earlier in the bible: “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” And described it as sheep among wolf. For this passage: There are two swords, yes. However, there are eleven apostles. (minus Judas) Jesus didn't say to gather more, but rather "it is enough"
Later after Jesus passes, his apostles are gathered and flogged for spreading the word. They didn't fight back. They considered themselves lucky to suffer shame in the name of Jesus. (Acts)
So then, I agree with Luppi still.
Regardless of your stance of the issue, God bless.
You speak ill of my brother, friend.
You are correct. Peter was acting unwisely.
Jesus sent out groups of two to spread the word, earlier in the bible: “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” And described it as sheep among wolf. For this passage: There are two swords, yes. However, there are eleven apostles. (minus Judas) Jesus didn't say to gather more, but rather "it is enough"
Later after Jesus passes, his apostles are gathered and flogged for spreading the word. They didn't fight back. They considered themselves lucky to suffer shame in the name of Jesus. (Acts)
So then, I agree with Luppi still.
Regardless of your stance of the issue, God bless.
#112 to #105
-
youregaylol (08/10/2015) [-] Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not break it. Christianity 101.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
#129 to #112
-
xblthatguy (08/10/2015) [-] Jesus fulfilled the law of the prophets, yes.
From Galatians:
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The old law does not Everything goes through God. Not to speak against the law, for how the law defined sin is why it is written Jesus lived a perfect life. The law is fulfilled because of Jesus, and accepting Jesus means Christ works through us. From what I understand, we fulfill the law by obeying Jesus and accepting him as our Lord and Savior.
From Galatians:
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The old law does not Everything goes through God. Not to speak against the law, for how the law defined sin is why it is written Jesus lived a perfect life. The law is fulfilled because of Jesus, and accepting Jesus means Christ works through us. From what I understand, we fulfill the law by obeying Jesus and accepting him as our Lord and Savior.
#91 to #28
-
iatedub (08/10/2015) [-] Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped, get your ******* information correct before you try to put down some ******** .
#93 to #28
-
iatedub (08/10/2015) [-] Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.
Want more? Because I can spend all day cucking you into submission.
#107 to #104
-
anonymoose (08/10/2015) [-] It's from God . . . for the Israelites to follow.
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" - Jeremiah 31:31-32
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" - Jeremiah 31:31-32
#185 to #93
-
phsycokidx (08/11/2015) [-] Except for the fact that jews were never slaves in Egypt. Exodus is false.
#252 to #28
-
sphincterface (08/11/2015) [-] Yeah, I feel like they took the whole 'two swords," thing out of context. I doubt Jesus would want his disciples to be armed.
#95 to #5
-
iatedub (08/10/2015) [-] Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.
Luke 22:36 response to the cucks thinking that it has anything to do with Jesus being anti Self defense
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped
Luke 22:36 response to the cucks thinking that it has anything to do with Jesus being anti Self defense
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped
#65 to #5
-
rundas (08/10/2015) [-] Everyone uses the "turn the other cheek" stuff to pretend that Jesus wanted people to just accept whatever came to them. But they ignore the parable of the thief, where the wise action is for the homeowner to be prepared for a thief--with a weapon, to defend his **** . Modern weapons are guns. 'Nuff said.
#102 to #5
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (08/10/2015) [-] Many people have a confused view about what the Bible says in regards to self-defense. The law given in Exodus 22:2-3 says that if a man breaks into a home to steal at night, the home-owner has the right to kill him in defense. In daylight, when the home-owner can see that he is there to steal and not to kill, he cannot kill the thief in defense. In Luke 22:37-39, Jesus explains it is good to be appropriately armed. In Proverbs 25:21-22 and Romans 12:17, Scriptures say to not repay evil with evil, but to bless your enemies. And in Matthew 5:39, Jesus said if someone slaps your right cheek, offer them your left as well.
The Bible has very few laws regarding self-defense, but plenty of examples. When Lot and his people were captured, Abram had no problem rescuing him with force (Genesis 14:13-16). In Luke 22:36, Jesus advised His disciples to take swords along with their other provisions. Then again, David refused to harm Saul, even though Saul was trying to kill him. And Jesus scolded Peter for using a sword to fight off the guards that were taking Jesus away (John 18:10-11).
What's the difference? The timing and the situation. In a situation with an unknown aggressor with unknown intent, as in Exodus 22:2, it is okay to use self-defense. If the offense has already occurred, as in Proverbs 25 and Romans 12, we should not take the law into our own hands, but seek justice through the authorities. David refused to kill Saul because Saul was God's anointed king and authority. Jesus condemned Peter's action not because of his intent to defend Christ, but because Peter was getting in the way of God's plan for the guards to take Jesus. The Matthew 5 passage is stickiest. It appears to say that we are to take whatever abuse comes our way quietly. But a "slap on the cheek" didn't mean physical violence. It refers to an insult against honor. We are not to defend our honor with physical violence, but shrug it off.
The Bible has very few laws regarding self-defense, but plenty of examples. When Lot and his people were captured, Abram had no problem rescuing him with force (Genesis 14:13-16). In Luke 22:36, Jesus advised His disciples to take swords along with their other provisions. Then again, David refused to harm Saul, even though Saul was trying to kill him. And Jesus scolded Peter for using a sword to fight off the guards that were taking Jesus away (John 18:10-11).
What's the difference? The timing and the situation. In a situation with an unknown aggressor with unknown intent, as in Exodus 22:2, it is okay to use self-defense. If the offense has already occurred, as in Proverbs 25 and Romans 12, we should not take the law into our own hands, but seek justice through the authorities. David refused to kill Saul because Saul was God's anointed king and authority. Jesus condemned Peter's action not because of his intent to defend Christ, but because Peter was getting in the way of God's plan for the guards to take Jesus. The Matthew 5 passage is stickiest. It appears to say that we are to take whatever abuse comes our way quietly. But a "slap on the cheek" didn't mean physical violence. It refers to an insult against honor. We are not to defend our honor with physical violence, but shrug it off.
#123 to #102
-
cabbagemayhem (08/10/2015) [-] I've always said this, but you put it into words well.
#215 to #102
-
theluppijackal (08/11/2015) [-] "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone typto, which means to strike repeatedly
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
your siagōn
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html
So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the **** out of you, do not repay him with violence'
Seems pretty anti violent to me.
which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."
I find it hard a serious beating to the face is 'an insult to honor' only
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html
your siagōn
www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html
So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the **** out of you, do not repay him with violence'
Seems pretty anti violent to me.
which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."
I find it hard a serious beating to the face is 'an insult to honor' only
#15 to #5
-
gameshredder (08/10/2015) [-] >Jesus was jewish
>Guns are expensive
>Legal guns means more guns sold
>More money for Gun Jew Jesus
>Guns are expensive
>Legal guns means more guns sold
>More money for Gun Jew Jesus
#1
-
Elk (08/10/2015) [-] The joke isn't funny, but the response to it was.
Is he supposed to be edgy as a joke?
Is he supposed to be edgy as a joke?
#116
-
mrgoodlove (08/10/2015) [-] What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of jesus? It only takes one nail to put the picture up
#82
-
anon (08/10/2015) [-] I don't think Jesus would have had a problem with going to a shooting range for fun. As for self-defense, Jesus probably would never have used a gun in self-defense, but that doesn't make it wrong for a Christian to use a gun in self-defense. Christians are called to emulate Christ, but we aren't Him. I don't have the power to forgive sins.
#253 to #183
-
drewjitsu (08/11/2015) [-]
Genesis 7:21-23
God drowns the earth except one family. In Matthew 24:37-42, Jesus approves and plans to repeat it during his second coming.
Exodus 12:29 He kills children for the sins of one man.
Joshua 6:20-21
He kills every living thing in the city. Men, women, children, cattle...nothing was spared.
Deuteronomy 2:32-35
More killing of women and children.
Deuteronomy 3:3-7
At this point, it starts to seem like God enjoys murdering women and children.
Numbers 31:7-18
This time he spares the virgins...but tells the soldiers to keep them. I wonder what they'll be doing with the virgins?
1 Samuel 6:19
He kills them for looking into a box...so essentially for curiosity, which he allegedly programmed.
2 Kings 2:23-24
Killed 42 boys for calling a man bald.
Judges 21:1-23
More killing and even instructs men to rape women.
The Christian god is evil. No way around that simple truth. He even admits to creating all the evil. He created all the people and then punished them for acting upon impulses that he created. Punished them for their existence, which was his fault. He's a coward. If you believe that book, then you must believe that God is evil, or you haven't read it all.
God drowns the earth except one family. In Matthew 24:37-42, Jesus approves and plans to repeat it during his second coming.
Exodus 12:29 He kills children for the sins of one man.
Joshua 6:20-21
He kills every living thing in the city. Men, women, children, cattle...nothing was spared.
Deuteronomy 2:32-35
More killing of women and children.
Deuteronomy 3:3-7
At this point, it starts to seem like God enjoys murdering women and children.
Numbers 31:7-18
This time he spares the virgins...but tells the soldiers to keep them. I wonder what they'll be doing with the virgins?
1 Samuel 6:19
He kills them for looking into a box...so essentially for curiosity, which he allegedly programmed.
2 Kings 2:23-24
Killed 42 boys for calling a man bald.
Judges 21:1-23
More killing and even instructs men to rape women.
The Christian god is evil. No way around that simple truth. He even admits to creating all the evil. He created all the people and then punished them for acting upon impulses that he created. Punished them for their existence, which was his fault. He's a coward. If you believe that book, then you must believe that God is evil, or you haven't read it all.
#256 to #253
-
dorfdorfdorf (08/12/2015) [-] none of that is the christian god, tho. you're talking about the jewish god. christians are christians because of the New Testament, and I see you have about 0 verses from there
#257 to #256
-
drewjitsu (08/12/2015) [-]
How about the book of revelation? That seems messed up too. Also, he'll send people to hell if they don't believe in him, despite the fact that he uses his infinite cosmic powers to hide from sight and never once attempts to prove himself. That's ****** up. It is a game of roulette that nobody agreed to play and their eternal soul is on the line. He punishes humans for damn near everything they do even though he's the one that created them knowing damn well that they'd do those things. If he is all knowing, it means he created billions of souls just to burn for eternity. Why would he willingly create so much sufffering?
Matthew 10:14-15
He states that cities that have neither received nor heard his word will fare worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
Matthew 10:34-35
He states that he does not come for peace, but with a sword and to make families hate each other.
Matthew 24:37
Jesus approves of the whole Noah flood thing and plans to do it again. Sounds like a good guy.
Mark 4:11-12
Jesus says he speaks in parables knowing full well that some people wont understand them...too bad for those folks because they're going to hell.
Mark 16:16
Jesus says that anyone who doesn't believe will be damned, but he refuses to provide any evidence of his existence.
Luke 1:20
Zachariah asked Gabriel how his wife could become pregnant as old as she was and Gabriel made him unable to talk just for asking.
Acts 12:23
Herod is smote to death because he didn't give God glory...whatever that means.
Romans 1:27-32
Homosexuals will burn in hell for no other reason than being homosexual.
Ephesians 1:4-5, 11
God decided before creating the Earth who was going to heaven and hell, nothing we do can change that. What...I thought we had free will?!?
Thessalonians 2:11-12
God will intentionally deceive people and send them to hell for believing his lies. Asshole thing to do, really.
It isn't hard to find evil in the Bible. God is evil. There is no way you can read all of that book and think he is worthy of anyone's worship. You are in denial, and that's okay. I was raised Christian and it took me a while to come to terms with that.
Matthew 10:14-15
He states that cities that have neither received nor heard his word will fare worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
Matthew 10:34-35
He states that he does not come for peace, but with a sword and to make families hate each other.
Matthew 24:37
Jesus approves of the whole Noah flood thing and plans to do it again. Sounds like a good guy.
Mark 4:11-12
Jesus says he speaks in parables knowing full well that some people wont understand them...too bad for those folks because they're going to hell.
Mark 16:16
Jesus says that anyone who doesn't believe will be damned, but he refuses to provide any evidence of his existence.
Luke 1:20
Zachariah asked Gabriel how his wife could become pregnant as old as she was and Gabriel made him unable to talk just for asking.
Acts 12:23
Herod is smote to death because he didn't give God glory...whatever that means.
Romans 1:27-32
Homosexuals will burn in hell for no other reason than being homosexual.
Ephesians 1:4-5, 11
God decided before creating the Earth who was going to heaven and hell, nothing we do can change that. What...I thought we had free will?!?
Thessalonians 2:11-12
God will intentionally deceive people and send them to hell for believing his lies. Asshole thing to do, really.
It isn't hard to find evil in the Bible. God is evil. There is no way you can read all of that book and think he is worthy of anyone's worship. You are in denial, and that's okay. I was raised Christian and it took me a while to come to terms with that.
#162
-
stonetomcat (08/10/2015) [-] >GOP teens
Ask something retarded, get something retarded. Not quite sure what they expected there.
Ask something retarded, get something retarded. Not quite sure what they expected there.
#182
-
anon (08/11/2015) [-]
For ****** sake... the comment section... Were fjers always this religious and preachy? This new gen of fjers is disappointing. I don't even have a problem with religion ,but the bible quotes? Really? This site is going stale.
#189 to #182
-
unfairlybanned (08/11/2015) [-] Been on funnyjunk sice 2009 on a few different accounts
This has gotten just disappointing.
This has gotten just disappointing.
