Who would Jesus kill?

Are the polititians doing a good job could you do better, debate your views with others
Guest
 

Postby Guest on Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:10 pm

mogadishu wrote:"if someone hits you, give him your other cheek"


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Most people don't, so I'll enlighten you. It's a pretty important point, because it shows Jesus’ humour and his quick wittedness as well.

The traditional greeting of a slave to it's master in Roman life was to present the back of your hand to the master's cheek. By presenting "the other cheek" you were claiming to be the "master" of the person who hit you. It was a pun that was understood at the time and unlike Shakespeare the bible doesn't have Cliff Notes.

The story of "present unto Caesar what is Caesar’s" and the story of the mustard seed growing into a "tree" are two other stories that are often quoted with no context.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:14 pm

mogadishu wrote:extrapolating that the new testament condones war on the basis that jesus ransacked a temple? file under S***.


I never said that and neither did anyone else.

Spank yourself.

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:41 pm

Jesus was a pacifist - that's the bottom line. You're twisiting his doctrine of love on rather spurious grounds to try and advocate war.
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:47 pm

While in general it is a good principle to look at a Bible passage on its own before comparing it to the rest of the Bible, in this case the narrative continues later that night: when on of the disciples used a sword, Jesus rebuked him for doing so.
A rebuke is recorded in three of the four gospels: 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.'), Luke 22:51 ('But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.'), and John 18:11 ('Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"'). Mark does not record a rebuke, but does note that while one disciple used a sword, Jesus allowed himself to be arrested peacefully (implying that he disagreed with the use of force).

Some commentators cite John 18:11 to suggest that Jesus was only opposed to the use of weapons on this particular occasion, because it was God's purpose for Jesus to be arrested. But the rebuke recorded in Matthew is far more wide-ranging ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'), and appears to condemn, or at least very strongly discourage, all use of weapons.


The group comprised Jesus and the eleven remaining apostles, and possibly some others. Two swords were not enough to defend such a group. Why then did Jesus say 'That is enough'?

Jesus ties the use of the sword to the Scripture being fulfilled ('And he was numbered with the transgressors'). So does the use of the sword only refer to this present occasion, when Jesus was to be arrested like a criminal (transgressor)?

On the other hand, there was not time for them to sell their cloak and buy a sword, suggesting Jesus was looking towards the future.

If Jesus was telling them to have a sword handy (for self-defense) as they went into the world preaching the gospel, why then do Acts and the epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully? (Darrel Bock's commentary gives the following examples: Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5).

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:14 pm

mogadishu wrote:Jesus was a pacifist - that's the bottom line. You're twisiting his doctrine of love on rather spurious grounds to try and advocate war.


I'm not. You're assuming Jesus requires us to roll over and show our belly to any show of force. I don't think he had that in mind, but of course I haven't had a conversation with him lately, and neither have you.

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:24 pm

No I'm not. Where are you getting this from?
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:49 am

mogadishu wrote:No I'm not. Where are you getting this from?

You are saying every Christian is required to be an absolute pacificist based on the example of Jesus, which incorrectly assumes Christianity requires adherents to emulate Jesus in every way.

Your incorrect assumption reflects your elementary ignorance of Christianity.

other guest
 

Postby other guest on Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:42 pm

. wrote:
mogadishu wrote:No I'm not. Where are you getting this from?

You are saying every Christian is required to be an absolute pacificist based on the example of Jesus, which incorrectly assumes Christianity requires adherents to emulate Jesus in every way.

Your incorrect assumption reflects your elementary ignorance of Christianity.


He also shows no idea of the differences between Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and liberal Christians. Not to mention the simple historical fact that good Christians have died and killed for their beliefs.

Evangelicals, the current core of the Republican party, and GWB is an Evangelical Christian, are very much willing to become active on the world stage. They are willing to go to war for specific causes. Under their direction the State Department of the USA created a women's right's organization dealing with Islamic traditions of killing widows and mutilating women's sexual organs and increased the USA's donations to Africa by 67% as well as working directly with religious organizations in the Sudan to stop the wars there.

Like it or not, the USA is going to be more and more hands-on active in the world.

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:06 pm

. wrote:
mogadishu wrote:No I'm not. Where are you getting this from?

You are saying every Christian is required to be an absolute pacificist based on the example of Jesus, which incorrectly assumes Christianity requires adherents to emulate Jesus in every way.

Your incorrect assumption reflects your elementary ignorance of Christianity.


Nonsense. I'm not saying anyone's required to be anything. But people who try to twist the teachings of jesus into some sort of rationale for war are employing hypocrisy.
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:09 pm

good Christians have killed for their beliefs.
no they haven't. plenty of bad ones have, though.
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:11 pm

mogadishu wrote:
good Christians have killed for their beliefs.
no they haven't. plenty of bad ones have, though.


Nonsense. Virtually every soldier that fought in WWI and WWII was a Christian. Should France be given back to Germany? Forget I asked, that actually sounds like a good idea.

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:30 pm

....
Last edited by mogadishu on Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:22 am

mogadishu wrote:Hitler was a Christian. His henchman were Christians. The third Reich were devout Catholics. Isn't it time we grew out of the idea that Christians fought on this side at that time, therefore they must be holy and and any killing they encountered must be righteous?

"The old lie: dulce et decorumest, pro patria mori"

That is a shameless lie: the Third Reich were not "devout Catholics"; nor were Hitler or his "henchman" practising Christians.

The Third Reich was, if anything, pagan. Hitler and the Nazis and consumed with Eastern mysticism as distorted to support their racist views on Aryan supremacy.

The swastika epitomizes the Third Reich's "religion":

The word is derived from the Sanskrit "svastika" and means "good to be". In Indo-European culture it was a mark made on people or objects to give them good luck.

It has been around for thousands of years, particularly as a Hindu symbol in the holy texts, to mean luck, Brahma or samsara (rebirth). It can be clockwise or anti-clockwise and the way it points in all four directions suggests stability. Sometimes it features a dot between each arm.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4183467.stm


The motif seems to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia. The swastika is used in religious and civil ceremonies in India. Most Indian temples, entrance of houses, weddings, festivals and celebrations are decorated with swastikas. The symbol was introduced to Southeast Asia by Hindu kings and remains an integral part of Balinese Hinduism to this day, and it is a common sight in Indonesia. The symbol has an ancient history in Europe, appearing on artifacts from pre-Christian European cultures. It was also adopted independently by several Native American cultures.

In the Western world, the symbol experienced a resurgence following the archaeological work in the late nineteenth century of Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered the symbol in the site of ancient Troy and associated it with the ancient migrations of Proto-Indo-Europeans ("Aryan" people). He connected it with similar shapes found on ancient pots in Germany, and theorised that the swastika was a "significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors," linking ancient German, Greek and Vedic culture.[1] [2] By the early 20th century it was widely used worldwide and was regarded as a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness.

The work of Schliemann soon became intertwined with the völkisch movements, for which the swastika was a symbol of "Aryan" identity, a concept that came to be equated by theorists like Alfred Rosenberg with a Nordic master race originating in northern Europe. Since its adoption by the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler, the swastika has been associated with fascism, racism (white supremacy), World War II, and the Holocaust in much of the West. The swastika remains a core symbol of Neo-Nazi groups, and is also regularly used by activist groups to signify the supposed Nazi-like behaviour of organizations and individuals they oppose.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Based on your earlier posts, it appeared that you just make up bullshit as you go along. It was therefore unclear whether you are a knave or a fool. Your post quoted above confirms that you are both a knave and a fool as well as an anti-Christian bigot.

User avatar
mogadishu
Princess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm

Postby mogadishu on Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:00 pm

...
Last edited by mogadishu on Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:color: Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite
:color:

Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXF5lVpN1ys

Image

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:59 pm

[quote="mogadishu"
"Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."


lmao. Christians in the USA are why the USA still supports Israel. Anti-Semitic Catholics my arse. WTF is that? It was the USA's Christians that worked to create Israel in the first place and if those same devote Christians are the first to condemn Israel for it's treatment of the Palestine’s, while yet overwhelmingly supporting the state of Israel, it remains the Christian belief.

Quoting prejudiced fools doesn't make you smart my friend. In fact just quoting that drivel brought my estimation of your intelligence down below average.

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests