Oh for crying out loud…anyone ever heard of quotation marks? Those usually designate who is talking. Let me point them out for you. To quote from the Bible, starting with Luke 19:26.
“…‘I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.’”
The two little verticle lines at the beginning mark where Jesus begins telling his parable, I didn’t copy most of the begining since it is a long parable. The single vertical line marks where the king in the parable begins speaking. Notice how there isn’t another little vertical line to mark the end of the king’s speech until after the quote about slaying enemies. This, in the English language, means that it was the king who made the quote in the parable, not a specific command of Jesus, Ryan
I’m not going to get into all the problems with this allagory to people taking advantage of people’s religious beliefs for personal profit.
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” – Mark 16:17-18
(As well as numerous other passages in which Jesus apparently regards mental and physical illnesses as being caused by demonic possession.)
Demonstrably false. Everyone did follow Jesus’s economics for the first forty-odd thousand years of human existence. Note that they couldn’t have all starved to death, as had they done so, we would not be here to point this fact out. :wally
This is a series, not a driving out demons will allow them to do all these things. When he cures the blind man, he makes no mention of casting out demons. When he cures the lepers, he makes no mention of casting out demons. Let’s keep the gross generalizations to a minimum here.
Granted, the Bible does speak of Jesus casting out demons. As pointed out in just about every other thread regarding Christianity and the Bible, the Bible is not a science textbook, a history textbook, a psychology textbook, nor anything but a moral textbook. It shouldn’t be intended to be such. Also, the Bible was written by men who did not have the knowledge we do about the world around us. Expect inaccuracies with regard to non-moral, non-essential points.
“This is a series, not a driving out demons will allow them to do all these things” should read: This is a series of actions, not a statement that driving out demons will accomplish all of these things."
Right, Neurotik. My point is, according to this passage Jesus the Great Moral Teacher told people to handle poisonous snakes and maybe drink poison. (Of course, these words were supposedly uttered after Jesus was dead, which makes their authenticity somewhat suspect from a secular “historical Jesus” point of view, but if we start getting into which things in the Bible did Jesus really say there’s no end to it.)
Jesus was not advocating the the picking up of snakes or the drinking of poison as parlor games. He was saying that those things will happen to his followers. See the last chapter of Acts where Paul is bitten by a viper and survives and this miracle helps to convert the island he has been shipwrecked on.
No, he said if they did those things they wouldn’t be harmed.
Nice? Who said anything about nice? It isn’t his fault that evil people would kill those who followed him – he was just being honest about it.
But if it is true – you would have a problem with a teacher who didn’t warn you, right? Wisdom is the mother of all her children again.
Hyperbolic, diabolic, a lie by another name? No. But in context the meaning here is clear – your obedience should be first and foremost to Jesus’s teachings.
Some people think Jesus was lying, yes.
Well, if you define a Christian as someone who keeps Jesus’s commandments, then your statement is wrong. Otherwise, it is still wrong, because their not keeping the commandment doesn’t change its meaning. WITMOAHC.
Societies are composed of individuals.
All that matters is that an individual can function without these mechanisms. Let the enemy chase his own tail.
But by doing evil to people who do evil, you are just being evil yourself, aren’t you? If someone hits you and you hit them back, all you are going to do is make him hit you again. I don’t see what that accomplishes.
But if his teachings are the way to God, again, even if you find he’s gone a little ego-maniacal here (he did grow up in a pre-messianic cult society, after all), you get the gist of it.
But how do you love God? By keeping Jesus’s commandments. You can be an atheist and obey his teachings just as much as anyone else – in fact there may even be more hope for you than people who worship even falser Gods than you may or may not have. If you keep his commandments, you would, according to Jesus, see that God exists. Hence you problem goes away.
It is OK for Jesus to come to earth with a sword and slay the evil, but he preaches not to commit evil if evil is done to you? A little hypecritical if you ask me. So then does that make Jesus evil…? Or was this part in the bible written by a blood thirsty sob who wanted Jesus to look more like a tough guy than an ancient hippie.
If someones hits you, you would be a fool not to at least defend yourself or at least run. Oh, and you make sure that you put his ass down after that first hit anyway. That is an accomplishment, you just ended the fight.
Jesus said this:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
"The owner’s servants came to him and said, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' "An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, Do you want us to go and pull them up?' "No,’ he answered, `because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
Do you understand?
Nothing wrong with walking away. Jesus did that quite often, as previously mentioned on this thread.
Yeah, and what happens when he wakes up and goes and gets seven of his friends and comes back? Did you end the fight or start a war?
Where in the Bible did Jesus bring a sword and slay anyone? It’s figurative, saying that his arrival wasn’t going to bring peace, but actually be the cause for a lot of conflicts and persecution. Rather prophetic, wouldn’t you agree?
So do you feel that Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr, were fools?
Just previous to this incident, the disciples are being generally wothless. Now, Jesus knows that they need to be led into their roles as founders of a new religion gradually, but its still annoying that they are surprised everytime he accomplishes anything.
Then he runs in to the fig tree. The fig tree isn’t bearing fruit because it isn’t time for it to. It’s just like the disciples. But Jesus wants fruit now, and he takes it out on the tree instead of the people; I see this as a critical step in G-d learning how to deal with humans.
Yes I understand. I may not read the bible like it was, well, the bible, but some of what I have read is contradictory. Did not God have angels that killed men in the name of God? Is that not evil itself? Even if it was for the apparent good, evil does begit evil as you said.
A war? You have watched to many movies. Usually when he is knocked out, you call the police, gather an eye witness and charge him w/ assault. A person has the right to defend themselves, and allowing someone to hurt you will lead to people considering you weak and taking advantage of you.
And as to the 7 friends? If he gathers the 7 friends then you are more than likely fighting a punk, and punks travel in packs. Trust me, he would not have been alone and you more than likely would have been mobbed or stabbed in the fight in the first place.
Neurotik:
1.Not really prophetic. Anyone who comes to bring change in a manner that others will not like should assume that they will encounter some hostility.
2.The King? Not a fool, he might not have attacked back physically, but he did attack back in another matter. That is defending himself and his people.
Ghandi? Never bothered to really pay attention. I lose respect for any person who inflicts pain upon themselves for any reason, and starving oneself for a noble cause is still starving oneself. So yes, I find him a fool for not finding some other means.
I don’t believe in hell, and I consider using the threat of eternal torture as a prop of one’s ethical system to be wrong. However, if hell is real, then according to his own teachings Jesus is responsible for its existence, which is even worse. According to the Gospels, Jesus taught that he was God. (“I and the Father are one.” – John 3:10) Hell is not simply some natural hazard against which Jesus is warning people; God/Jesus sends people there–Jesus uses verbs like “condemned” and “thrown” when speaking of hell.
A recklessly irresponsible view. Is it immoral then to become a police officer? Or a judge?
Do you really see no difference between simple revenge, and the restraint of evil, especially by individuals acting on behalf of society as a whole? If someone hits me, and a police officer restrains that individual-—with the appropriate level of force if need be—-that police officer is simply compounding the problem?
Re: Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”
This passage can just as easily be read against those men as in support of them. Non-violent resistance is still resistance.
In sum, Jesus preaches total, complete non-resistance to evil, of a nature which would seem to make any sort of justice impossible if a society were actually constituted of people who follow his teachings. (When societies later became officially “Christian”, these teachings were of course ignored, so that “Christian” states maintained “Christian” armies and “Christian” police forces.) At the same time, Jesus promises that evildoers will be punished with maximum violence–conscious torment, for ever and ever—-by God in the not-so-sweet by-and-by.
I’m no scholar myself. I don’t know if God ever decides to can someone ahead of schedule or if God even had that power, nor can I say for sure anyone could prove that such an event occured. People die just like everything else. Note there is no escalation, in any event, as no one who sympathizes with the struckee can’t get revenge at God.
Well, how do you think wars start?
OK, so you knock him out and then you go and get seven of your friends and they lock him up for some amount of time, and then he gets out, and maybe if you are lucky he won’t come back with a knife. Or maybe the next guy you piss off to the point where he hits you has a knife, since I don’t see you learning a lesson here.
Hurting others back could lead to more trouble.
Um… I thought you were the ones calling the friends, punk.
The fig tree bears its fruit by the time it shows its leaves. When Jesus encountered it, it had leaves but no fruit. It was therefore like the hypocrites Jesus criticized openly, and it appears Jesus used the opportunity to present an object lesson about hypocrisy.
So, any system that uses the threat of punishment is wrong, in your opinion?
So, you believe Justice and Love are incompatible?
So, a system that doesn’t use the threat of punishment is wrong, now, in your opinion?
So, now you believe Justice and Love are compatible?
All I am certain of now is that you are definitely an opinionated person!
How do you define revenge?
You don’t see potential complications?
In what way?
Again, that is simply not true, as a society which kept his teachings would have no need for justice.
Again, do you define a Christian as someone who obeys Christ’s teachings or not? Otherwise, heck: you can call Iran a Christian nation by your definition.
A system which punishes every transgression with eternal torture is wrong. Eternal torture isn’t “justice”.
If someone is harming other people, that person should be restrained from doing so. I don’t believe that we should take someone who is guilty of a crime, hook him up to a life support system, put an IV full of stimulants in his arm in order to keep him conscious for as long as possible, and then subject him to ingenious tortures while keeping him alive and aware for as long as we possibly can. Torturing someone forever is even more revolting.
Torture does not equal Justice
You really can’t see the difference between revenge, and trying to restrain people from continuing to harm others, or teaching them not to harm others in the future? Please tell me you never, ever, ever intend to have children.
Potential complications? Sure. Police power can be abused. I’m a member of the ACLU (which non-violently resists police brutality and the abuse of state power). However, I think, despite my civil libertarian inclinations, that abolishing all restraints against evil will lead to a lot more violence.
In what way is non-violent resistance not resistance?!? “Resistance” is “the act of resisting”; to “resist” something is “to strive or work against; fight off; oppose actively”. Also “to remain firm against the action or effect of; withstand”. Clearly, this can be done with or without the use of violent force.
“Jesus is such a great moral teacher, he came up with an ethical system which no human society in history ever has or ever could follow.” Ethics and morals concern the rightness or wrongness of conduct and behavior; coming with a system of “ethics” which it is impossible for humans to follow is a contradiction in terms.
You will note the quotation marks around “Christian” in that part of my post. Very few people who have called themselves Christians have attempted to actually follow the teachings of Jesus, as they are literally set down in the Gospels (and never an entire social or political order; at most, some subcultures within larger systems have more or less sought to follow those teachings); I would argue this is because the totality of those teachings are utterly unworkable and downright immoral.
If you’re going to be that snide, you could at least have a valid point to make. AFAIK, the ancient Jews hadn’t heard of quotation marks.
You’re not quoting the Bible, you’re quoting a translation of the Bible.
All of this is in the version you have. You expect me to believe that these quote marks were present not only in the original Bible, but in Jesus’ speech? Did Jesus go around making quote marks in the air with his fingers? This passage is open to interpretation, and muppetsoup has a different interpretation than you. I don’t see how you can declare one interpretation to be without a doubt the correct one.
Seeing as how it was not written in the English language, what it means in that language is irrelevant.
Wars do not start from fist fights. Read a history book. You might find some things insightful.
Who is to say that I pissed him off? And I never said anything about getting my friends. I said getting an eye witness. Must’ve been selective sight and reading.
Once again, did I say anything about hurting others? The point was not to be shown as weak, so that you are not taken advantage of. Many ways to do that. Do you understand?
(sigh) Sometimes fighting ignorance can be a waste of time.
