Jesus Preached Violence?

[idirtify]

Haha! It seems like of you think reason is a valid way of knowing then the burden is on you to prove it.

Secondly, I'm not going to respond to every stupid and groundless "contradiction" that YumYum reads from his atheist troll websites and reposts here. Do a Google search man. The answers to the consistency of God's Word are everywhere man. Check out AOmin.org for some good resources. I promise, the answers are everywhere and I'm not going to respond if others already have responded in depth.


So anyway. I'll wait for you to prove that reason is a valid way to know things.

It is amazing that you say you reject reason. I’m not sure there’s a surer way to lose credibility on these forums. Do you not care about your credibility?

But more amazing is that you say you reject reason as a valid way of knowing, and then ask for proof. Don’t you realize that you are relying on reason when you employ basic elements of it like validity and proof? I’m afraid your comment is quite self-defeating.

But wait…maybe you do actually reject reason, since so many of your replies seem so unreasonable – like this one: You just finished asserting that it’s my burden to prove something (reason…which I did easily by referring to your own use of it), when you immediately proceeded to refuse your burden to prove the infallibility of the bible (your position) – even after you had been confronted with clear evidence of fallibility. Suffice it to say that telling your opponent to “google it” does not qualify as VALID PROOF.

 

[jmdrake]

I found something on “money changers”:

“Become trusty money changers who reject the false coins and accept only the good ones.”

Clem. Hom. II.51; III.50; XVIII.20; Didascalia IX (see also Connolly, p.101);
Apostolic Constitutions II.36; Clem. Alex., Misc. I.28.177.

This would rebut your characterization and support mine,

Not really. I'm not Catholic and hence I don't give any weight to extra Biblical sources. You might as well have quoted TodaysEpistleReading or Aqua Buddha. Nice try though. But even if I did accept that source your argument still fails. These weren't "trusty" money changers. They were thieves. Here's what was happening. (I already explained it, but again you might not have understood what I was saying). Everyone was forced to change over to the temple currency to participate in the services. Remember the tax the Pharisees conned Peter into paying? That was temple currency. It would be like going to church and having to change your money into "Creflo Dollars" first. It was an artificial exchange that existed only to benefit those who put the system in. That's why I likened it to the Federal Reserve.

which is that they were merely fee based currency converters. Of course that is not to say that there was no opportunity in the service for deceit, since every enterprise carries such opportunity.

Now as far as your “alternative-arguments” argument theory, and your definitions of “violence” and “property rights”, they would not seem to be as valid as the conventionally accepted ones. IOW, you are stretching, dude. And as far as your claim that Jesus had property rights because he owned the temple (because he was older and actually the same as the creator god), doesn’t it contradict your criticism of property rights above?

Really "dude"? Conventionally accepted definitions of non violence do not equate property with violence against people like you are doing. I just took the bar "dude". If you are defending a person against bodily harm you have a right to kill the assailant. If you are defending mere property you don't. So the laws of this very land don't buy into the "violence against property = violence against people" argument you're pushing and that is so popular among some here. I'm not stretching anything. You've been stuck in an echo chamber for so long that you're becoming tone deaf.

Lastly I'm not criticizing property rights per se. I'm criticizing how you (and others) raise them to the level of human rights. And more directly I'm criticizing your absurd definition of violence and "force". Again nobody was hit. They had swords. They could have stood their ground. They chose to run instead. So no, there's no contradiction. Jesus acted from a position of dual moral authority. Part of the moral authority was because of who He was. Part of the moral authority was because of what they were doing. It's like when the hypocrites brought a woman caught in adultery with stones in hand ready to kill her. After Jesus wrote in the sand they all dropped their stones and walked away. Did Jesus force them to leave? One could argue that I suppose. But He didn't use violence.

 

[jmdrake]

Good answers.

I agree with you about not making property rights the basic law from which all ethics derives.

But in the case of the cleansing of the Temple, I think part of the point Jesus was making was that the Temple was his property, not as one citizen of Israel among many, but as the very son of God whose house it was they were visiting as guests (John 2:16).

Oh I don't disagree. In fact I would say He was doing both at the same time. Three things really. He was asserting His authority, standing up for those who were also offending but were to timid to stand up against the profaning of God's temple, and signifying the beginning of the end of the temple era. Since the Jews had failed to preserve the temple as a "house of prayer for all people" it would be left to them "desolate."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is amazing that you say you reject reason. I’m not sure there’s a surer way to lose credibility on these forums. Do you not care about your credibility?

But more amazing is that you say you reject reason as a valid way of knowing, and then ask for proof. Don’t you realize that you are relying on reason when you employ basic elements of it like validity and proof? I’m afraid your comment is quite self-defeating.

But wait…maybe you do actually reject reason, since so many of your replies seem so unreasonable – like this one: You just finished asserting that it’s my burden to prove something (reason…which I did easily by referring to your own use of it), when you immediately proceeded to refuse your burden to prove the infallibility of the bible (your position) – even after you had been confronted with clear evidence of fallibility. Suffice it to say that telling your opponent to “google it” does not qualify as VALID PROOF.

No, reason doesn't prove anything. If you try to use reason as proof for something, you are merely committing the inductive fallacy of asserting the consequent (which all science does, btw) illustrated thusly- A, therefore B.

 

[TER]

Faith and Reason

Indeed! Here is a statement on the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. It unfortunately is mixed with some polemics, but it lays out the differences plainly. (note: I have edited this from the site.)

Faith and Reason

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. She does not seem this to be anything but what is natural. For this is the life in Christ - these are the mysteries of the faith. So while Orthodoxy does not fear from the science of the created nature, it does not find it's ends in it, but in the greater nature, of which Christ is the Firstfruits of. So while the mysteries of creation are revealed, Orthodoxy is never intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy just as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It is amazing that you say you reject reason. I’m not sure there’s a surer way to lose credibility on these forums. Do you not care about your credibility?

But more amazing is that you say you reject reason as a valid way of knowing, and then ask for proof. Don’t you realize that you are relying on reason when you employ basic elements of it like validity and proof? I’m afraid your comment is quite self-defeating.

But wait…maybe you do actually reject reason, since so many of your replies seem so unreasonable – like this one: You just finished asserting that it’s my burden to prove something (reason…which I did easily by referring to your own use of it), when you immediately proceeded to refuse your burden to prove the infallibility of the bible (your position) – even after you had been confronted with clear evidence of fallibility. Suffice it to say that telling your opponent to “google it” does not qualify as VALID PROOF.

Well, what is reason according to you? Shouldn't you define it and tell me how you think knowledge comes from your atheistic reason? I know what I think it means, but what do you think it means in your atheistic worldview?

Do you think the mind is a tabula rasa? How is the concept of a tabula rasa mind not a contradiction in terms? What is a "concept" anyway? How can a "concept" be true or false? Does it justify itself? How can the concept of “cat" be true or false without being spoken, heard, or read in context? Do you use inductive reasoning even though it is invalid? How can universal statements of truth be made from observations from your individual senses and mind? Are your senses infallible? Why do you have faith that your senses are infallible?

There are too many questions that you need to answer before I even know where you are coming from. I certainly have an idea of what kind of reasoning is valid, and it is not what a Randian or your run-of-the-mill atheist calls "Reason", and thats what Luther had in mind when he said "reason" is the enemy of Christianity.

So, again, how does knowledge come from "reason" as you defies it?

 

[jmdrake]

Stop the flagrant insulting. You’re flagged. (Once again, we see a religious advocate being the first one to resort to insulting, and clearly demonstrating the source of religious aggression.)

I'm gonna go run off and cry now. This is, quite possibly, the worst thing that's ever happened to me in my entire life. Not sure how I'll recover.

I'm agnostic, supergenius. But that doesn't mean that I haven't read it several times, which is exactly what you should do to try to understand it, and if you don't, then you shouldn't antagonistically ask the question.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again.

 

[idirtify]

Not really. I'm not Catholic and hence I don't give any weight to extra Biblical sources. You might as well have quoted TodaysEpistleReading or Aqua Buddha. Nice try though. But even if I did accept that source your argument still fails. These weren't "trusty" money changers. They were thieves. Here's what was happening. (I already explained it, but again you might not have understood what I was saying). Everyone was forced to change over to the temple currency to participate in the services. Remember the tax the Pharisees conned Peter into paying? That was temple currency. It would be like going to church and having to change your money into "Creflo Dollars" first. It was an artificial exchange that existed only to benefit those who put the system in. That's why I likened it to the Federal Reserve.



Really "dude"? Conventionally accepted definitions of non violence do not equate property with violence against people like you are doing. I just took the bar "dude". If you are defending a person against bodily harm you have a right to kill the assailant. If you are defending mere property you don't. So the laws of this very land don't buy into the "violence against property = violence against people" argument you're pushing and that is so popular among some here. I'm not stretching anything. You've been stuck in an echo chamber for so long that you're becoming tone deaf.

Lastly I'm not criticizing property rights per se. I'm criticizing how you (and others) raise them to the level of human rights. And more directly I'm criticizing your absurd definition of violence and "force". Again nobody was hit. They had swords. They could have stood their ground. They chose to run instead. So no, there's no contradiction. Jesus acted from a position of dual moral authority. Part of the moral authority was because of who He was. Part of the moral authority was because of what they were doing. It's like when the hypocrites brought a woman caught in adultery with stones in hand ready to kill her. After Jesus wrote in the sand they all dropped their stones and walked away. Did Jesus force them to leave? One could argue that I suppose. But He didn't use violence.

First, if you reject extra-biblical information on “moneychangers”, where did you get all of yours? In your claim that they were like a federal reserve, you seem to have filled in a lot of blanks. And even then, it doesn’t sound like they were a branch of the gov/church, or any statist entity that made those tax laws.

Second, conventional definitions describe “vandalism” as non-consensual (caused by a person) property damage, and a form of violence. Compared to bodily harm, vandalism may be less severe or consequential or self-defensible, but it’s still violence – and a rights violation.
--------
The hierarchy may explain better: All violence is not vandalism, but all vandalism is violence. All rights violations are not vandalism, but all vandalism is a right violation.
--------
And since the overturned tables were the property of the sellers and money changers, the behavior was vandalism; and certainly NOT like writing in the sand. As a law student, you now might want to consider arguing that the tables were not actually damaged.
(Seriously, I hope you pass the bar.)

 

[idirtify]

No, reason doesn't prove anything. If you try to use reason as proof for something, you are merely committing the inductive fallacy of asserting the consequent (which all science does, btw) illustrated thusly- A, therefore B.

Well I suppose technically you are right that reason ALONE usually “doesn’t prove anything”, since it’s merely the mechanism by which validity is determined; where proof generally requires more things (like evidence). OTOH, it depends on how you look at it: 1) it’s bad reasoning to think things can be proven without evidence; 2) but good reasoning usually contains information that serves as evidence. But you are quite wrong that all science uses reason only as proof, and commits the inductive fallacy of asserting the consequent. I’m not sure why you would make such a claim since I’m sure you know science is always concerning itself with evidence.

 

[idirtify]

Well, what is reason according to you? Shouldn't you define it and tell me how you think knowledge comes from your atheistic reason? I know what I think it means, but what do you think it means in your atheistic worldview?

Do you think the mind is a tabula rasa? How is the concept of a tabula rasa mind not a contradiction in terms? What is a "concept" anyway? How can a "concept" be true or false? Does it justify itself? How can the concept of “cat" be true or false without being spoken, heard, or read in context? Do you use inductive reasoning even though it is invalid? How can universal statements of truth be made from observations from your individual senses and mind? Are your senses infallible? Why do you have faith that your senses are infallible?

There are too many questions that you need to answer before I even know where you are coming from. I certainly have an idea of what kind of reasoning is valid, and it is not what a Randian or your run-of-the-mill atheist calls "Reason", and thats what Luther had in mind when he said "reason" is the enemy of Christianity.

So, again, how does knowledge come from "reason" as you defies it?

In every post that contains any coherence, you defeat your own claim that you reject reason. To truly reject reason would appear as a total cessation of legibility (ie, a fist banging randomly on a keyboard). But you make ENOUGH sense in your arguments, you sufficiently disprove your previous claim. Although your appeals are about the nature of reason, you utilize your capacity for reason to make them. It’s like questioning the validity of public speaking, WHILE speaking publicly; no matter how good your argument, it can only be so good – because your actions betray your words.

 

[jmdrake]

First, if you reject extra-biblical information on “moneychangers”, where did you get all of yours? In your claim that they were like a federal reserve, you seem to have filled in a lot of blanks. And even then, it doesn’t sound like they were a branch of the gov/church, or any statist entity that made those tax laws.

I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious, but I will. I used the modern example of the Federal Reserve to point out how the Bible is still applicable today. I didn't use it as a part of the Bible itself as you seemed to be doing. Jesus called the moneychangers thieves. We (or at least I) consider the modern day "moneychangers" (the Feds) to be thieves. You brought up some extra-Biblical source of some church father that I don't know nor accept as an authority to prove what exactly? That some moneychangers aren't thieves? That some Christians believe or believed that some moneychangers were not thieves? What was the purpose for your evidence? And what's the context? The context that Jesus was addressing was artificial moneychanging. There was no Biblical requirement for a separate temple currency. (At least I've never seen one).

Second, conventional definitions describe “vandalism” as non-consensual (caused by a person) property damage, and a form of violence. Compared to bodily harm, vandalism may be less severe or consequential or self-defensible, but it’s still violence – and a rights violation.

1) Vandalism is typically classified as a non-violent crime.

See:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/vandalism.html
Vandalism, on its own, is often considered a non-violent crime that generally affects ones "quality of life", but may escalate to more serious crimes typically involving juveniles including theft/larceny, burglary, drug possession, disturbing the peace, and other random acts of violence.

2) To convict someone of vandalism you have to prove actual damage to the property. Now unless these tables were made of glass they probably were not damaged.

See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism
To obtain a conviction the prosecution must ordinarily prove that the accused damaged or destroyed some property, that the property did not belong to the accused, and that the accused acted willfully and with malice. In the absence of proof of damage, the defendant may be guilty of Trespass, but not vandalism. If there is no proof that the defendant intentionally damaged the property, the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime but can be held liable for monetary damages in a civil action.

--------
The hierarchy may explain better: All violence is not vandalism, but all vandalism is violence. All rights violations are not vandalism, but all vandalism is a right violation.
--------

Vandalism is not violence. But even if it is violence, what is described in the gospels is not even vandalism.

And since the overturned tables were the property of the sellers and money changers, the behavior was vandalism; and certainly NOT like writing in the sand. As a law student, you now might want to consider arguing that the tables were not actually damaged.
(Seriously, I hope you pass the bar.)

LOL. I honestly argued that before reading this last bit.

Anyway, to wrap this up can we look at it from the context of the OP? He was asking for help dealing with Christians who likely don't support Ron Paul because he's not "violent" enough against the "evil mooselems". I'm not sure how your arguments help in that vein. Regardless, let's say you knew of two preachers. One preached every Sunday that we needed to pass laws to punish the gays and other "sinners" and we needed to go to war with the "evil mooselems" to make the world safe for Christianity. But all he ever did was preach. The second preached love and forgiveness, but one day he snapped because he heard about how old ladies were being totally ripped off in church bingo games so he went in and overturned the bingo tables and said "Get out of God's house you thieves!" After that he went back to his normal routine of preaching love. Which would you consider more "violent"? And which would concern you more?

 

[FromFreedomToFascism]

Well, God created us with free will. He gave people this so they could make their own decisions, good or bad, and deal with the consequences of each. Ron Paul supports this as well. God doesn't just always prevent people from doing what they want - if he did, there'd be no way to see someone's true intent or heart. If you give them the choice, it's up to them to live with the consequences, good or bad.

 

[jmdrake]

A major problem Christians have in interpreting the Bible is understanding context. When confronting your Christian friends about "Jesus supporting violence," ask them in what context was He prescribing its use. Even if they appeal to the wars of the Old Testament, you should ask them why those wars were started and how does the reason(s) for those wars apply to us in the 21st Century today. Just because God told His people to destroy an entire nation of rebellious unbelievers thousands of years ago, it does not mean that applies to how we treat rebellious unbelievers today, having the New Covenant instituted with the full revelation of Christ.

Hmmmmm.....Does this mean that you now reject the false teaching that persecution by Christians of unbelievers is okay? Because when I made that point in an earlier thread you jumped on this "jmdrake is denying God's sovereignty by saying we can't burn heretics at the stake" bandwagon. Really, you can't have it both ways. Either there really is a difference under the new covenant about how to deal with unbelievers or there isn't. If there isn't then what's your point here? If there is then why defend Calvin participating in persecution?

 

[jeremiahj13]

I just read some of the earlier posts on this thread and do not appreciate the insults to Christ/my religion. I am Christian and I support Ron Paul. The argument I use to bring my brothers to Ron Paul is that God created Adam + Eve with the free will to eat of the fruit, therefore people should have the liberty/free will to do as they please legally.

I think some of you religion-bashers should check out Ron Paul's website, under the issues, and read "statement of faith."

 

[erowe1]

I just read some of the earlier posts on this thread and do not appreciate the insults to Christ/my religion. I am Christian and I support Ron Paul. The argument I use to bring my brothers to Ron Paul is that God created Adam + Eve with the free will to eat of the fruit, therefore people should have the liberty/free will to do as they please legally.

I think some of you religion-bashers should check out Ron Paul's website, under the issues, and read "statement of faith."

I'm not sure what posts you have in mind. But when I look through this thread, I see a lot of spaces that say that so-and-so is on my block list. Feel free to use that feature if it will make your experience at ronpaulforums more enjoyable.

 

[idirtify]

I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious, but I will. I used the modern example of the Federal Reserve to point out how the Bible is still applicable today. I didn't use it as a part of the Bible itself as you seemed to be doing. Jesus called the moneychangers thieves. We (or at least I) consider the modern day "moneychangers" (the Feds) to be thieves. You brought up some extra-Biblical source of some church father that I don't know nor accept as an authority to prove what exactly? That some moneychangers aren't thieves? That some Christians believe or believed that some moneychangers were not thieves? What was the purpose for your evidence? And what's the context? The context that Jesus was addressing was artificial moneychanging. There was no Biblical requirement for a separate temple currency. (At least I've never seen one).



1) Vandalism is typically classified as a non-violent crime.

See:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/vandalism.html
Vandalism, on its own, is often considered a non-violent crime that generally affects ones "quality of life", but may escalate to more serious crimes typically involving juveniles including theft/larceny, burglary, drug possession, disturbing the peace, and other random acts of violence.

2) To convict someone of vandalism you have to prove actual damage to the property. Now unless these tables were made of glass they probably were not damaged.

See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vandalism
To obtain a conviction the prosecution must ordinarily prove that the accused damaged or destroyed some property, that the property did not belong to the accused, and that the accused acted willfully and with malice. In the absence of proof of damage, the defendant may be guilty of Trespass, but not vandalism. If there is no proof that the defendant intentionally damaged the property, the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime but can be held liable for monetary damages in a civil action.



Vandalism is not violence. But even if it is violence, what is described in the gospels is not even vandalism.



LOL. I honestly argued that before reading this last bit.

Anyway, to wrap this up can we look at it from the context of the OP? He was asking for help dealing with Christians who likely don't support Ron Paul because he's not "violent" enough against the "evil mooselems". I'm not sure how your arguments help in that vein. Regardless, let's say you knew of two preachers. One preached every Sunday that we needed to pass laws to punish the gays and other "sinners" and we needed to go to war with the "evil mooselems" to make the world safe for Christianity. But all he ever did was preach. The second preached love and forgiveness, but one day he snapped because he heard about how old ladies were being totally ripped off in church bingo games so he went in and overturned the bingo tables and said "Get out of God's house you thieves!" After that he went back to his normal routine of preaching love. Which would you consider more "violent"? And which would concern you more?

No. I mean where in the bible did you get all your information about the moneychangers being like the Federal Reserve? I know where in the bible you get your information about them being thieves (Jesus called them that), but what part of the bible serves as the source for all your elaborate details that make them out to be just like the FR? I hope your source doesn’t consist only of the reasoning that since Jesus called the moneychangers thieves, and we know the FR are also thieves, then the moneychangers were like the FR (I think that’s fallacious inductive – and/or circular – reasoning).

Claiming vandalism isn’t violence is an entirely arguable position, as would any position be that tried to refute the standard dictionary. While you might on another forum get away with supporting your position with SOME laws (that don’t consider vandalism to be violence), laws on this forum carry VERY little weight as evidence of anything (other than human aggression).

But hold on…now you are apparently changing your argument again – and claiming that Jesus was only opposing “artificial money changing”. OK, I think it’s time I went back and counted the number of defenses/excuses you have made.

So far, in chronological order, you have argued that Jesus didn’t do anything wrong because:
…he owned the temple and had property rights.
…he used no physical violence against any person.
…even if he damaged property, property rights don’t come from god and therefore are not equal to human rights.
…turning over tables isn’t "violence" or "force".
…temple guards did nothing.
…all moneychangers were thieves (because there was a monopoly on the Jewish faith).
…there was a monopoly on the Jewish faith, and Jesus was in effect challenging the abuse of spiritual monopoly power.
…the animals themselves were defiling the temple.
…these particular money changers were thieves and like the Federal Reserve (because everyone was forced to change over to the temple currency to participate in the services, which was an artificial exchange that existed only to benefit the gov).
…property damage does not equal violence against people, and current laws say you can’t defend your property against a vandal by killing him.
…he had dual moral authority; because of 1) who he was and 2) what they were doing.
…he didn't use violence.
…these moneychangers weren’t real moneychangers, but ARTIFICIAL moneychangers.

I admit that many of these do not contradict each other, but many do. Anyway, I think we can get a better idea on that by trying to get them all in one sentence:

“Jesus didn’t do anything wrong because he was God and owned everything and could do anything; but even if not, he was Jesus and owned the temple and could do ALMOST anything (there); but even if not, he only caused property damage and didn’t physically harm anyone; but the moneychangers deserved property damage because all moneychangers were thieves - because there was a law that forced everyone to change over to the temple currency to participate in the services, and because they were like the Federal Reserve because the FR are also thieves; but even if not, these moneychangers were doing ARTIFICIAL moneychanging; but even if not, there was probably no property damage because Jesus probably didn’t damage their tables; but even if he did, the animals were defiling the temple and no one should put up with that shit.”

While you will probably accuse me of strawman distortions, you really have proposed all these assorted defenses. At this time, it would be wise for you to dump most of them and focus one no more than a couple – because so far it appears you have just been trying out different ones to see if they work.

 

[idirtify]

I just read some of the earlier posts on this thread and do not appreciate the insults to Christ/my religion. I am Christian and I support Ron Paul. The argument I use to bring my brothers to Ron Paul is that God created Adam + Eve with the free will to eat of the fruit, therefore people should have the liberty/free will to do as they please legally.

I think some of you religion-bashers should check out Ron Paul's website, under the issues, and read "statement of faith."

A “religion” can no more be “insulted” than an “opinion”. Only PEOPLE can be insulted, not their opinions. All beliefs/opinions are fair game for disagreement.

Btw, WELCOME.

 

[jmdrake]

No. I mean where in the bible did you get all your information about the moneychangers being like the Federal Reserve? I know where in the bible you get your information about them being thieves (Jesus called them that), but what part of the bible serves as the source for all your elaborate details that make them out to be just like the FR? I hope your source doesn’t consist only of the reasoning that since Jesus called the moneychangers thieves, and we know the FR are also thieves, then the moneychangers were like the FR (I think that’s fallacious inductive – and/or circular – reasoning).

Sorry, but how is that circular reasoning? We do know the federal reserve are thieves. We also know that controlling currency is their primary function. Now you believe the Bible to be a myth right? But every good myth has some element of truth. If I talk about the Wizard of Oz and how the man behind the curtain is like the powers behind our current government or how the yellow brick road is referring to the gold standard am I using "fallacious inductive reasoning"? I don't think so! Further I've already explained how moneychangers in the temple served no legitimate function. That's by definition. If a church today said "Before you can pay your offerings here, you have to convert your money to church dollars" any thinking person would be suspicious of that.

Claiming vandalism isn’t violence is an entirely arguable position, as would any position be that tried to refute the standard dictionary. While you might on another forum get away with supporting your position with SOME laws (that don’t consider vandalism to be violence), laws on this forum carry VERY little weight as evidence of anything (other than human aggression).

The standard dictionary definition of vandalism says nothing about violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism
: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

Further the definition includes "Willful or malicious" destruction or defacement of public or private property. By the standard dictionary definition what Jesus did wasn't vandalism even if the tables were damaged. The term "willful or malicious" implies that the person specifically meant to cause the damage. It's clear from the passage that Jesus' intent was to clear the tables. If they were damaged as a result, so what? So even by a "standard dictionary" you don't get to the result you seek.

But hold on…now you are apparently changing your argument again – and claiming that Jesus was only opposing “artificial money changing”. OK, I think it’s time I went back and counted the number of defenses/excuses you have made.

I haven't "changed" my argument. Again you should understand arguing in the alternative. Also you have yet to make any legitimate argument.

I admit that many of these do not contradict each other, but many do.

Name two that actually contradict.

Anyway, I think we can get a better idea on that by trying to get them all in one sentence:

“Jesus didn’t do anything wrong because he was God and owned everything and could do anything; but even if not, he was Jesus and owned the temple and could do ALMOST anything (there); but even if not, he only caused property damage and didn’t physically harm anyone; but the moneychangers deserved property damage because all moneychangers were thieves - because there was a law that forced everyone to change over to the temple currency to participate in the services, and because they were like the Federal Reserve because the FR are also thieves; but even if not, these moneychangers were doing ARTIFICIAL moneychanging; but even if not, there was probably no property damage because Jesus probably didn’t damage their tables; but even if he did, the animals were defiling the temple and no one should put up with that shit.”

While you will probably accuse me of strawman distortions, you really have proposed all these assorted defenses. At this time, it would be wise for you to dump most of them and focus one no more than a couple – because so far it appears you have just been trying out different ones to see if they work.

Why would I do that? It's clear that you have an agenda, that you haven't put up a single legitimate argument for your position, and that now you've taking the strange position that I have too much proof on my side therefore I must be wrong. (Talk about fallacious arguments). You really aren't my target audience and never were. What Jesus did doesn't even fit the "standard dictionary" definition of vandalism, let alone any legal definition. In short, you don't have a case. But since you have an agenda you will stick to the non case that you think you have.

 

[Revolution9]

A “religion” can no more be “insulted” than an “opinion”. Only PEOPLE can be insulted, not their opinions. All beliefs/opinions are fair game for disagreement.

Btw, WELCOME.

Oh lookie what bunch of prevaricating misdirection and word twisting showed up here to voice his displeasure at those who have faith in their lives.

Rev9

 

[idirtify]

Sorry, but how is that circular reasoning? We do know the federal reserve are thieves. We also know that controlling currency is their primary function. Now you believe the Bible to be a myth right? But every good myth has some element of truth. If I talk about the Wizard of Oz and how the man behind the curtain is like the powers behind our current government or how the yellow brick road is referring to the gold standard am I using "fallacious inductive reasoning"? I don't think so! Further I've already explained how moneychangers in the temple served no legitimate function. That's by definition. If a church today said "Before you can pay your offerings here, you have to convert your money to church dollars" any thinking person would be suspicious of that.



The standard dictionary definition of vandalism says nothing about violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism
: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

Further the definition includes "Willful or malicious" destruction or defacement of public or private property. By the standard dictionary definition what Jesus did wasn't vandalism even if the tables were damaged. The term "willful or malicious" implies that the person specifically meant to cause the damage. It's clear from the passage that Jesus' intent was to clear the tables. If they were damaged as a result, so what? So even by a "standard dictionary" you don't get to the result you seek.



I haven't "changed" my argument. Again you should understand arguing in the alternative. Also you have yet to make any legitimate argument.



Name two that actually contradict.



Why would I do that? It's clear that you have an agenda, that you haven't put up a single legitimate argument for your position, and that now you've taking the strange position that I have too much proof on my side therefore I must be wrong. (Talk about fallacious arguments). You really aren't my target audience and never were. What Jesus did doesn't even fit the "standard dictionary" definition of vandalism, let alone any legal definition. In short, you don't have a case. But since you have an agenda you will stick to the non case that you think you have.

Yes, we know that the FR controls currency, but where does the bible say any such thing about “moneychangers”? For example, where does it indicate that they served no legitimate function? You can’t just claim that since Jesus called the moneychangers thieves, and we know the FR are also thieves, then the moneychangers were like the FR – at least not credibly. If you don’t think it’s circular, then look up “false conclusion” or “non-sequitur”. Again, where are you obtaining all your information about the biblical moneychangers? Is the term even mentioned anywhere in the bible other than the temple-incident passages?

But the same dictionary includes property damage in its definitions of “violence” and “violent”:

“violence –
a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure”

The example is of a property-rights violation.

“violent –
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
3a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult>”

These two are “custom-tailored” to the actions of Jesus in the temple.

Which leads us to yet another defense you have added to your collection (in this late hour of the debate); that the property damage was not “willful”. I contend that it was definitely “willful”, since the only alternative would be “accidental”; and in no way were the tables overturned accidentally. And to continue to argue that Jesus intended to overturn the tables, but didn’t intend to damage them, would be truly silly.

An example of a couple contradictory defenses would be: ALL moneychangers were thieves / all may not have been, but THESE were definitely thieves. You can’t credibly claim both.

Why should you dump most of your defenses? Because as I said; or reworded, you appear to be adding new defenses as the pervious ones fail.

My only agenda is my position (not secret). As far as your claim that I have yet to make a legitimate argument, I’m not clear on what you mean. I’m obviously arguing that the actions of Jesus in the temple incident were violent and unjustified; because there is only incriminating evidence in the passages with no exculpatory evidence. What he did perfectly fits the definitions of “violent”.

“Target audience”? What’s that about? Doesn’t sound relevant to me.