Jesus Preached Violence?

[Working Poor]

What I find curious is what exactly is your goal in life and why does it include challenging Christians? Are you on a crusade? What exactly is your motivation? Perhaps, it would better be asked, who or for whom are your motivations?

TER maybe he is trying to ask fo9r help. Salt,light, truth, and love these are your tools

 

[TER]

TER maybe he is trying to ask fo9r help. Salt,light, truth, and love these are your tools

Yes, you are right. Now, let us see by his answer what is the truth.

 

[acptulsa]

Nice to see facts retorted with a faithful facepalm...

No intelligent retorts? LOl.

Sure. But the two of you simply use semantics--or better still, ignorance and stubbornness in close alliance--to change the truth to suit your arguments, time and time again. So, why wouldn't those trying to hold an intelligent conversation with the pair of you stop and rub our faces from time to time? For example:

Are these the kinds of standards you require of people who disagree with any of your beliefs, or just the religious ones?

You know, before you argue with an agnostic over that agnostic's 'beliefs', maybe just maybe you should drop over to dictionary.com and expand your vocabulary.

Einstein.

 

[Working Poor]

Yes, you are right. Now, let us see by his answer what is the truth.

No, let's see by your answer what is the truth.

It is surely good advice to tell you not to judge what you do not understand. No one with a personal investment is a reliable witness, for truth to him has become what he wants it to be. If you are unwilling to perceive an appeal for help as what it is, it is because you are unwilling to give help and to receive it. To fail to recognize a call for help is to refuse help. Would you maintain that you do not need it? Yet this is what you are maintaining when you refuse to recognize a brother's appeal, for only by answering his appeal can you be helped. Deny him your help and you will not recognize God's Answer to you. The Holy Spirit does not need your help in interpreting motivation, but you do need His.

 

[idirtify]

It is because you refuse to believe, plain and simple.

What I find curious is what exactly is your goal in life and why does it include challenging Christians? Are you on a crusade? What exactly is your motivation? Perhaps, it would better be asked, who or for whom are your motivations?

Typically in a debate, each side attempts to support and defend a belief/position/opinion. It’s pretty obvious that when your opponent abandons all such attempts and resorts to no-content accusations like “you simply refuse to believe”, that they can no longer support their position. That’s because the answer to such an accusation is even simpler: “because your position has been shown to be less credible”.

And the same deduction can be made when your opposition resorts to confusing the argument, turning it from one against a belief/position into one against a person/people, and trying to make it into something personal.

 

[acptulsa]

And the same deduction can be made when your opposition resorts to confusing the argument, turning it from one against a belief/position into one against a person/people, and trying to make it into something personal.

Which is why so many people who wish to argue a postion without a leg to stand on resort to obfuscation to the point of attacking an agnostic's 'beliefs'. What better way to get the other side to take the thing personally? After all, though the obfuscator thinks he's fooling people into thinking he's debating, he is at that point merely ranting. And rants tend to be personal.

 

[idirtify]

TER maybe he is trying to ask fo9r help. Salt,light, truth, and love these are your tools

You are basically correct. Any disagreement is a way to ask for help believing the opposition’s opinion. But if it cannot be sufficiently/credibly explained, why should it be believed?

 

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Are these the kinds of standards you require of people who disagree with any of your beliefs, or just the religious ones?

You know, before you argue with an agnostic over that agnostic's 'beliefs', maybe just maybe you should drop over to dictionary.com and expand your vocabulary.

Einstein.

I’m sorry…are you saying I need to look something up in the dictionary?

 

[idirtify]

Which is why so many people who wish to argue a postion without a leg to stand on resort to obfuscation to the point of attacking an agnostic's 'beliefs'. What better way to get the other side to take the thing personally? After all, though the obfuscator thinks he's fooling people into thinking he's debating, he is at that point merely ranting. And rants tend to be personal.

Yes, you have basically reworded, and improved upon, my point. Good analysis.

 

[acptulsa]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Are these the kinds of standards you require of people who disagree with any of your beliefs, or just the religious ones?

I’m sorry…are you saying I need to look something up in the dictionary?

Oh, if I'm going to argue with someone, I will always argue substance over semantics. And I will always call someone who tries to win an argument by literally trying to change the meaning of plain English words. Thanks for asking.

 

[idirtify]

Oh, if I'm going to argue with someone, I will always argue substance over semantics. And I will always call someone who tries to win an argument by literally trying to change the meaning of plain English words. Thanks for asking.

Apparently you are saying that I am miss-defining something. Could you please specify what?

 

[TER]

No, let's see by your answer what is the truth.

My answer, as well the other Christians in this thread, is in accordance to the witness of the Church. For anyone who has studied the life and acts of Jesus Christ seriously, using the writings of the Scriptures and of the saints, it is quite obvious that Jesus reprimanded the moneychangers in the temple because of the deception and thievery that was occurring there, a place of hallowed ground and sacred space. That someone chooses to believe He did so because He was 'against free markets' when it is completely unfounded, unsupported, and inconsistent with the facts and with history is not the spirit of someone who is humbly 'asking for help'. So, to keep up this argument and accusation against Christ is, in a word, antichrist, the motivation being to accuse and judge Christ with malice and hatred and have others do so as well. This is not the work of someone who is 'asking for help'. This is the work of someone who is wishing to slander and divide for their own selfish purposes.

 

[idirtify]

My answer, as well the other Christians in this thread, is in accordance to the witness of the Church. For anyone who has studied the life and acts of Jesus Christ seriously, using the writings of the Scriptures and of the saints, it is quite obvious that Jesus reprimanded the moneychangers in the temple because of the deception and thievery that was occurring there, a place of hallowed ground and sacred space. That someone chooses to believe He did so because He was 'against free markets' when it is completely unfounded, unsupported, and inconsistent with the facts and with history is not the spirit of someone who is humbly 'asking for help'. So, to keep up this argument and accusation against Christ is, in a word, antichrist, the motivation being to accuse and judge Christ with malice and hatred and have others do so as well. This is not the work of someone who is 'asking for help'. This is the work of someone who is wishing to slander and divide for their own selfish purposes.

If you believe those things, why didn’t you write them in a reply to me, where I had refuted them with well-founded and well-supported reasons? Such as; the money changers were only performing a currency-conversion service for a fee. And as far as the law requiring all 20-y-olds pay up to priests/government, it doesn’t sound to be related to what was going on in the temple - nor to be a creation of the money changers. So why don’t you tell us why you believe something that is not reflected in the words of the passages, or in any definitions of the terms?

I mean your post was directly addressing my points, so why not reply to my quote? Can’t you defend your argument against my rebuttals?

Regarding your characterizations of a challenge to your belief as an “accusation against Christ” and “antichrist” and “to accuse and judge Christ with malice and hatred” and “to slander and divide for their own selfish purposes”, they are entirely inaccurate. Please don’t mistake a disagreement for a personal insult, and the motivation for said disagreement as malice or hatred. There is certainly none of that is present in my disagreements.

 

[TER]

If you believe those things, why didn’t you write them in a reply to me, where I had refuted them with well-founded and well-supported reasons? Such as; the money changers were only performing a currency-conversion service for a fee. And as far as the law requiring all 20-y-olds pay up to priests/government, it doesn’t sound to be related to what was going on in the temple - nor to be a creation of the money changers. So why don’t you tell us why you believe something that is not reflected in the words of the passages, or in any definitions of the terms?

I mean your post was directly addressing my points, so why not reply to my quote? Can’t you defend your argument against my rebuttals?

Regarding your characterizations of a challenge to your belief as an “accusation against Christ” and “antichrist” and “to accuse and judge Christ with malice and hatred” and “to slander and divide for their own selfish purposes”, they are entirely inaccurate. Please don’t mistake a disagreement for a personal insult, and the motivation for said disagreement as malice or hatred. There is certainly none of that is present in my disagreements.

The disagreement we are having is that you refuse to believe that the market and moneychangers were doing deceitful things in the sacred space of the temple. You make Jesus out to be a liar when He calls them a 'den of thieves'.

Here is something you said earlier in this thread: " I can’t see how you can credibly label the actions of Jesus as anything but anti-capitalist prejudice and initiated aggression."

Well, the reason you can't see it (when it has been spelled out to you in simple terms) is because in your heart you wish it to be the case that Jesus is anti-capitalist and the initiator of 'unnecessary' aggression. Why do you wish this to be so? The reason is so that you can accuse Christ and slander Him and cause division. Is this not the case? Or are you really seeking for truth as you dirtify every religious thread you visit?

 

[robert68]

My answer, as well the other Christians in this thread, is in accordance to the witness of the Church. For anyone who has studied the life and acts of Jesus Christ seriously, using the writings of the Scriptures and of the saints, it is quite obvious that Jesus reprimanded the moneychangers in the temple because of the deception and thievery that was occurring there, a place of hallowed ground and sacred space. That someone chooses to believe He did so because He was 'against free markets' when it is completely unfounded, unsupported, and inconsistent with the facts and with history is not the spirit of someone who is humbly 'asking for help'. So, to keep up this argument and accusation against Christ is, in a word, antichrist, the motivation being to accuse and judge Christ with malice and hatred and have others do so as well. This is not the work of someone who is 'asking for help'. This is the work of someone who is wishing to slander and divide for their own selfish purposes.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21649.aspx

Tertullian, one of the Fathers of the Church, commented the Temple Incident by saying "Christians should consider trade unworthy". Basil (another Father of the Church) had similar words. John Chrisostomos went a step further by saying that even the fruits of "honest, hard labor" should be shunned.

 

[idirtify]

The disagreement we are having is that you refuse to believe that the market and moneychangers were doing deceitful things in the sacred space of the temple. You make Jesus out to be a liar when He calls them a 'den of thieves'.

Here is something you said earlier in this thread: " I can’t see how you can credibly label the actions of Jesus as anything but anti-capitalist prejudice and initiated aggression."

Well, the reason you can't see it (when it has been spelled out to you in simple terms) is because in your heart you wish it to be the case that Jesus is anti-capitalist and the initiator of 'unnecessary' aggression. Why do you wish this to be so? The reason is so that you can accuse Christ and slander Him and cause division. Is this not the case? Or are you really seeking for truth as you dirtify every religious thread you visit?

We agree on my disagreement, that I refuse to believe that the moneychangers were doing deceitful things (btw he went off on the sellers of doves too). But why should I believe it when neither the content of the passages, nor your arguments, provide any reason to believe it? As far as Jesus being a liar, you are jumping to conclusions (and confusing a disagreement with an insult). We are talking about the ACTIONS of Jesus, not his character. (Lots of people lie, but aren’t “liars”. It’s the difference between disagreeing with the message and attacking the person. Please understand this important distinction, since it is at the core of Ron Paul’s beliefs about individual liberty.) And if there is nothing inherently deceptive about the actions of the businesspeople in the temple, the ACTIONS of Jesus can’t be anything but prejudicial and aggressive. And the small biblical passages simply contain no evidence for deception (and you have NOT “spelled out” any such thing).

Which brings us to your last paragraph where you make personal remarks of your own against me. Please stop attempting to paint my posts as personal, solely in order to create an excuse to insult me. That’s merely the oldest debating trick of the religious advocate, and a demonstration of the source of all religious aggression. Besides, you have no idea what’s in my heart and the subject is not the slightest bit relevant.

 

[idirtify]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21649.aspx

Good thread; skimmed about half. Looks like we have a different definition of “moneychangers”: not currency converters, but money lenders. O well…either way, my argument would not change, since there’s nothing inherently deceptive with either practice.

 

[TER]

And if there is nothing inherently deceptive about the actions of the businesspeople in the temple, the ACTIONS of Jesus can’t be anything but prejudicial and aggressive.

And if the actions of the buisiness people in the temple were deceptive, would you still judge Christ to be a liar and prejudicial?

 

[TER]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21649.aspx

Tertullian, one of the Fathers of the Church, commented the Temple Incident by saying "Christians should consider trade unworthy". Basil (another Father of the Church) had similar words. John Chrisostomos went a step further by saying that even the fruits of "honest, hard labor" should be shunned.

Have you read Tertullian? Or Basil? Or John Chrisostom? If yes, then please point to me in which of their writings they said such things instead of just copying what someone posted on the internet.

 

[idirtify]

And if the actions of the buisiness people in the temple were deceptive, would you still judge Christ to be a liar and prejudicial?

Apparently I need to re-explain that my argument does not “judge Christ to be a liar and prejudicial”. It only judges his actions. Can you understand the difference?

But let’s just imagine that you asked the better question:
If the actions of the business people in the temple were deceptive, then the ACTIONS of Christ would not be deceptive or prejudicial.