|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think this passage means what you think it means. The Crusaders sacked Constantinople because they didn't get paid quick enough by an upstart Byzantine Emperor. The Fourth Crusaders were already anathematized by the Pope for sacking a town on the Venetians request instead of, you know, crusading
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 14:26, John 18:36 Second, nothing you quoted contradicts Jesus early statement in favor of nonviolence, it's pretty hard to take from those quotes that Jesus wants you to kill your family. Sword here is pretty clearly a metaphorical way of describing division and strife, not a command to kill your parents. Jesus does procure two literal swords in Luke 22:38 as part of an attempt to fulfill prophecy and get himself put on trial, but his injunction "that is enough" strongly indicates he's not attempting to mount an armed rebellion. If you have an interest John Howard Yoder's "Politics of Jesus" is a pretty coherent look at how the gospel portrays Jesus with a pacifist political message. Obviously the views of historical Jesus are debatable, but the Biblical text really is fairly clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
I think if Jesus comes back what he professes will deeply confuse everyone of every creed. Most people will probably wish he flew back to heaven.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I think if Jesus comes back what he professes will deeply confuse everyone of every creed. Most people will probably wish he flew back to heaven. A valid point, as a historical figure Jesus probably has very little to do with gospel texts written between 30 and 70 years after his death in a language he never spoke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:33
|
|
Barlow posted:First off, quoting disparate bits of various gospels out of context is a poor way to derive meaning from the Bible. Take Matthew 10:34-36 for instance, which is part of the instructions for the Twelve Apostles and about the trials they will endure while engaged in doing their work and not couched as a general command. Statements like "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" are also a lot clearer as instructions. The point is that taking Jesus as an absolute pacifist is something that isn't supportable by the texts, and relies on treating Jesus as though he expected everyone to be able to follow his commands universally. This is something that has about as much writing in the gospels contradicting it as there is material supporting peacefulness. You also neglect the quotation from John which should be enough to counter the notion of Jesus as absolute pacifist, but of course John is not synoptic.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Ok that's a start. Now, the hard part. Explain all the reasons why its bad and, most importantly, which catholic teachings it violates. Hint: while catholic teachings don't compel this they don't forbid it either which is why catholic hospitals still do it in the third world where states lack the will/power to forbid them from doing so. So the church proper doesn't see it as violating doctrine. But you aren't the Catholic Church. Why do you think it violates catholic teachings? If it doesn't, and its bad, why don't the churches teachings forbid it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The point is that taking Jesus as an absolute pacifist is something that isn't supportable by the texts, and relies on treating Jesus as though he expected everyone to be able to follow his commands universally. This is something that has about as much writing in the gospels contradicting it as there is material supporting peacefulness. You also neglect the quotation from John which should be enough to counter the notion of Jesus as absolute pacifist, but of course John is not synoptic. In the passages you quoted Jesus was not endorsing violence between families. He was acknowledging the fact that at the time his teachings were considering both radical and heretical. He was not making a proclamation of intent but a prediction of the immediate future. His messages would cause arguments and possibly even violence along the highly Orthodox Jews of his time. These were predictions of great sadness for the Christ, not a gleeful proclamation of fratricide. Holy hell I'm an atheist and I know apologetics better than you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The Crusaders sacked Constantinople because they didn't get paid quick enough by an upstart Byzantine Emperor. The Fourth Crusaders were already anathematized by the Pope for sacking a town on the Venetians request instead of, you know, crusading That's...exactly what I said? The Crusaders sacked Constantinople after they'd already been excommunicated for being murderous assholes so I don't see why you're bitter against the Catholic Church for something the church told a bunch of avaraicious European nobles not to do. Who What Now posted:In the passages you quoted Jesus was not endorsing violence between families. He was acknowledging the fact that at the time his teachings were considering both radical and heretical. He was not making a proclamation of intent but a prediction of the immediate future. His messages would cause arguments and possibly even violence along the highly Orthodox Jews of his time. These were predictions of great sadness for the Christ, not a gleeful proclamation of fratricide. No no, that was clearly Jesus commanding you to kill your mom if she's an awful heretic so war is good. But don't worry We Can Trust the priesthood to determine for us what wars are holy and what are unjust. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Good to see all the sick and innovative new burns on Christians in this thread, 5'd and subscribed
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:57
|
|
Who What Now posted:In the passages you quoted Jesus was not endorsing violence between families. He was acknowledging the fact that at the time his teachings were considering both radical and heretical. He was not making a proclamation of intent but a prediction of the immediate future. His messages would cause arguments and possibly even violence along the highly Orthodox Jews of his time. These were predictions of great sadness for the Christ, not a gleeful proclamation of fratricide. I think that you're jumping to conclusions. The basic element here is that Jesus isn't absolutely pacifistic. He's saying that his teachings will bring strife, but strife requires two sides. He's not telling his followers to just knuckle under, or to do whatever it takes to avoid violence. In fact, you're not just jumping to conclusions, you're making poo poo up entirely. If you're not willing to treat people with honesty, should you really be trying to discuss things?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Basically, this is how all dialethia I've seen can be reduced to. So no, I have yet to see a legit dialethia, because once more it only appears to violate a basic logical principle by virtue of using one word to describe two entirely different concepts. If one is arguing to prove a dialethia, one is doing it wrong. Especially in the Christian context. It's revelatory. And uh, if Bonhoeffer was right that abolishes organized belief sets that relate humanity to existence. And this is even implied, in the synoptics, and by Jesus. That bringing a sword to family stuff. It can be seen as bring a sword to household, breaking apart the way families were organized and how individuals defined who they were (using the concept of family). I don't know, I'm starting to think that the little commission might be more important than the great commission. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. Jesus is not a Pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Peta posted:Good to see all the sick and innovative new burns on Christians in this thread, 5'd and subscribed The biblical knowledge by some Christians in this thread is shockingly bad. Between the guy who claimed the KJV is the authoritative bible, the guy claiming adoption is sick because the biological mother isn't raising the child, and this guy trying to resurrect Just War theory, I'm starting to suspect they're trying to make Christianity look bad on purpose. When you've got atheists defending the peacefulness and inclusivity of Jesus' message, it's hardly a "burn Christianity" thread. Case in point: Is it fascism yet posted:Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. John 8:7 posted:"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." When you're sinless like Jesus, then you get to beat up sinners like Jesus did. It's hilarious that earlier in the thread when we pointed out God was cool with performing abortions so He obviously didn't consider it murder we get "Oh but just because it's okay for God to do doesn't mean it's okay for you to do" but when Jesus specifically commanded us to turn the other cheek suddenly it's "Oh well God didn't do that himself so we don't have to either, gently caress what Jesus commanded." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Jesus is pretty much silent on the issue of violence, except it's pretty easy to see from his teachings that he was totally uninterested in it as a solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. Kindof ignoring what he does, and says, in those occasions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
There is a difference between casting out money changers from the temple and stoning a women for adultery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Kindof ignoring what he does, and says, in those occasions. You mean the part where he calls the samaritan woman a dog? He never stopped them entirely from shielding him from people, probably for his own safety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The biblical knowledge by some Christians in this thread is shockingly bad. Between the guy who claimed the KJV is the authoritative bible, the guy claiming adoption is sick because the biological mother isn't raising the child, and this guy trying to resurrect Just War theory, I'm starting to suspect they're trying to make Christianity look bad on purpose. I, too, have read The God Delusion and watched several Christopher Hitchens debates
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Peta posted:I, too, have read The God Delusion and watched several Christopher Hitchens debates Hi there coward, jump on in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You also neglect the quotation from John which should be enough to counter the notion of Jesus as absolute pacifist, but of course John is not synoptic. John 18:36 NRSV posted:Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” Not sure I understand your interpretation of that verse. Jesus clearly says that those that follow him should not be fighting. John 18:36 is almost always taken as a verse in support of pacifism. I know Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr tried to bypass this verse by arguing that most people simply live in a "kingdom of the world" and thus aren't required to adhere to high norms advocated by Jesus, but from the text it's clear that those who followed Jesus don't operate under that assumption or they would have tried to rescue him. Compare the ample textual support for pacifism with that for, say, the orthodox (athanasian) understanding of trinitarianism. There really is no Biblical support for that idea at all, yet you're a heretic if you don't believe it in most traditions. Really should be the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is a difference between casting out money changers from the temple and stoning a women for adultery. Exactly. Some violence is justified, according to the new testament. I don't get why anyone would deny that, maybe the hippie movement still has some support on bible exegesis?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is a difference between casting out money changers from the temple and stoning a women for adultery. Yes there is! And when it comes to the mass death and destruction of war, for some reason people are wanting to use casting some guys out of the temple as their example rather than when He told us not to kill another because we are all sinners. Hmmmm... Peta posted:I, too, have read The God Delusion and watched several Christopher Hitchens debates So you have nothing of substance to say, cool, but your first post was enough to establish that. VVVVVVV Oh, you're actually trolling by trying to cast Christianity in the worst light possible. Well okay then, enjoy. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes there is! And when it comes to the mass death and destruction of war, for some reason people are wanting to use casting some guys out of the temple as their example rather than when He told us not to kill someone. Hmmmm... He didn't say anything about killing Dogs, a.k.a. Non-Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
There's no justification for the demand that contemporary believers deeply understand 2,000-year-old teachings. The Christian faith has changed a lot since then. Sorry, kid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:You mean the part where he calls the samaritan woman a dog? He never stopped them entirely from shielding him from people, probably for his own safety. Canaanite. Mixing up the women. And holy crap, you're missing the point of the metaphor. He's busting up another hierarchical (in this case Israel) relationship that relates people to God (the idea of a national god that is only for the members of the nation)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Peta posted:There's no justification for the demand that contemporary believers deeply understand 2,000-year-old teachings. The Christian faith has changed a lot since then. Sorry, kid.  If you don't think Jesus' message was timeless and you don't want to follow Christianity, then don't. I don't understand this attempt to twist the Gospels into supporting war and violence. Like, if you really want to fight endless wars and stone harlots, gays, and undesirables, Christianity isn't for you. But luckily there's a tailor-made philosophy that does everything you want: it's called fascism. Just go be that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Canaanite. Mixing up the women. And holy crap, you're missing the point of the metaphor. He's busting up another hierarchical (in this case Israel) relationship that relates people to God (the idea of a national god that is only for the members of the nation) He literally calls her a bitch. He obviously does not think she is on the same level as him and his followers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Peta posted:There's no justification for the demand that contemporary believers deeply understand 2,000-year-old teachings. The Christian faith has changed a lot since then. Sorry, kid. Except for the appeal to the revelatory nature of the bible as a justification for basing law and morality on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I think you are failing to grasp my point. For Christians, the essence of Jesus's teachings is timeless. But there's a pretty steep curve that you need to apply due to many centuries of social progress. That's why Christians don't logically need to justify antiquated, or seemingly barbarous, first-century beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. Also, this is just misinformed. Jesus overturns tables of money changers at the temple and drives out sheep and cattle. Find me this verse where he "beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple." Also, what "sholars" think that Jesus had an armed gang that abused locals and what exactly are their sources?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Some of the posters in this thread seem to have an image of Jesus that painfully adheres to modern liberal values, when its obvious that his teachings are violent, racist and sexist, as where the times he lived in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. For most people, pacifism is a stance on war or large-scale conflict, not isolated incidents of physical violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Peta posted:I think you are failing to grasp my point. For Christians, the essence of Jesus's teachings is timeless. But there's a pretty steep curve that you need to apply due to many centuries of social progress. That's why Christians don't logically need to justify antiquated, or seemingly barbarous, first-century beliefs. No one in this thread is asking them to. Seriously, read this page: it's certain Christians* trying to say that Jesus supports some idiosyncratic barbarous beliefs that they happen to hold and atheists saying "No, Jesus said the opposite of that" *Well more likely trolls trying to make Christians seem as horrible as possible
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:49
|
|
Barlow posted:Not sure I understand your interpretation of that verse. Jesus clearly says that those that follow him should not be fighting. John 18:36 is almost always taken as a verse in support of pacifism. Jesus is saying that there are circumstances under which violence is acceptable/justifiable. This is incompatible with the sort of absolute pacifism which is attributed to Jesus. VitalSigns posted:
Personally, I believe that the Mau Mau Uprising was a just war. How about you?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No one in this thread is asking them to. Seriously, read this page: it's certain Christians trying to say that Jesus supports some idiosyncratic barbarous beliefs that they happen to hold and atheists saying "No, Jesus said the opposite of that" So you're telling Christians that they don't need to understand the fine points of the Gospel and then lambasting them for not understanding the fine points of the Gospel. Cool. There's nothing wrong with Christians interpreting Jesus's teachings so as to fit modern morality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Peta posted:For most people, pacifism is a stance on war or large-scale conflict, not isolated incidents of physical violence. Violence as a politic measure? Jesus doesn't say a lot about that. Nothing, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Christians  Bonhoeffer again. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:He literally calls her a bitch. He obviously does not think she is on the same level as him and his followers. Every read Of Mice and Men? Curley's wife, what does Steinbeck have to say about Curley's wife? Is Steinbeck saying something about the way we all look at women, or is he being a misogynist? There's a right answer to that question (because Steinbeck was nice enough to write letters about his intent). And if you can figure out what it is, you should be able to figure out what Jesus is doing and why you are wrong. Edit: Bonus points if you start asking what's the context of the authors of Matthew and Mark (and her nationality is different in Mark), and what are they saying when they write Jesus as saying this. Little Blackfly posted:Except for the appeal to the revelatory nature of the bible as a justification for basing law and morality on it. That's a relatively new thing actually (and a idolatrous thing.) Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:Violence as a politic measure? Jesus doesn't say a lot about that. Nothing, really. It's obvious from his decision not to incite violent rebellion that he was a pacifist
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Jesus heals the Canaanite woman's child because she abases herself and says that she's like a dog compared to the Jews, the chosen people of God. I dunno how you're going to read that particular scene as Jesus saying that all religio-ethnic groups are equal but I'm sure it will be a good time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:58
|
|