Jesus Preached Violence?

[idirtify]

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

Since you accuse me of distortion without explaining, I must assume you are claiming that “religion” is not a kind of “opinion” and/or that “belief” is not also “opinion”. Those claims are not reasonable. Please explain. (Usually the basis for accusations are provided WITH the accusations.)

 

[oyarde]

I had to look up prevaricating . Learned something today anyway

 

[jmdrake]

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?

Thank you for reminding me why I typically ignore you. You're logic lacks so much it's painful. You're trying to use the narrative of the moneychangers to attack Jesus right? Well in doing so you have to, for the sake of discussion, accept that the narrative as written. Yeah you don't believe Jesus was god and pre-existed the temple or that Jesus can be trusted to tell the truth about the moneychangers, but you don't believe Jesus even existed. You're trying to have it both ways.

Now, going from the narrative as written, if these moneychangers were honest upstanding citizens providing a useful service you would think the temple incident would have been brought up at Jesus trial right? It wasn't. And lastly, you've yet to offer any legitimate reason for moneychangers in the temple. The burden of proof in this regard is on you since you are the one making the accusation that Jesus was being violent and that Jesus was slandering the moneychangers.

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”

No one was injured or abused. There is no evidence that any property was damaged. In fact the preponderance of the evidence is that no property was damaged. Tables that day were typically made of wood. Considering the function (money changing at a market) this was like not some fancy dining table. Go do your own experiment and flip over a rough wooden table 10 times and see if there is any damage. Then and only then get back with us with your results. I expect a YouTube.

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.

Using your ridiculous "custom-tailor" dictionary fishing, a Ron Paul supporter who raises a "Ron Paul 2012" sign at an Obama rally and shouts in an agitated way is being "violent". This kind of argument wouldn't pass the laugh test in court and you know it.

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.

1) You haven't made the case that there was any damage so the above argument is beyond stupid.
2) You haven't made the case that any sane person would even think that a sturdy wooden table would be damaged by flipping it over, so the above argument is beyond stupid.
3) You are equating something being flipped over with it being damages and that in itself is beyond stupid.

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.

Except I never said that. So now you're stooping to making up arguments on my behalf just so that you can claim they are contradictory?

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.

They only "fail" because you are being intellectually dishonest. And frankly I could care less if they "fail" with you because you aren't looking for the truth.

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”.

1) You haven't given any evidence of any violence under even your most tortured definition.
2) You're making the term "violent" so loose that even a hard sneeze could be considered violent.
3) You're claiming I'm making contradictory arguments by making arguments that I've never made.

No. You haven't made any legitimate arguments. At least I haven't seen any.

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

It doesn't sound relevant to you because you don't understand debate. I was initially responding to someone who claimed to be a Christian. You are someone who's looking for any excuse to tear down Christ no matter how ridiculous your argument is. Obviously anything I say will "fail" with you because you aren't being rational in this regard. Note that I'm not saying that you aren't being rational because you're an atheist. I've known rational atheists and agnostics like Amy. You're not being rational because of the tortured hoops you'll go through to try to make a laughable argument stick. So I have no reason to "tailor" my argument to fit you. No matter what I might say it wouldn't work with you because you aren't being rational.

 

[idirtify]

Thank you for reminding me why I typically ignore you. You're logic lacks so much it's painful. You're trying to use the narrative of the moneychangers to attack Jesus right? Well in doing so you have to, for the sake of discussion, accept that the narrative as written. Yeah you don't believe Jesus was god and pre-existed the temple or that Jesus can be trusted to tell the truth about the moneychangers, but you don't believe Jesus even existed. You're trying to have it both ways.

Now, going from the narrative as written, if these moneychangers were honest upstanding citizens providing a useful service you would think the temple incident would have been brought up at Jesus trial right? It wasn't. And lastly, you've yet to offer any legitimate reason for moneychangers in the temple. The burden of proof in this regard is on you since you are the one making the accusation that Jesus was being violent and that Jesus was slandering the moneychangers.



No one was injured or abused. There is no evidence that any property was damaged. In fact the preponderance of the evidence is that no property was damaged. Tables that day were typically made of wood. Considering the function (money changing at a market) this was like not some fancy dining table. Go do your own experiment and flip over a rough wooden table 10 times and see if there is any damage. Then and only then get back with us with your results. I expect a YouTube.



Using your ridiculous "custom-tailor" dictionary fishing, a Ron Paul supporter who raises a "Ron Paul 2012" sign at an Obama rally and shouts in an agitated way is being "violent". This kind of argument wouldn't pass the laugh test in court and you know it.



1) You haven't made the case that there was any damage so the above argument is beyond stupid.
2) You haven't made the case that any sane person would even think that a sturdy wooden table would be damaged by flipping it over, so the above argument is beyond stupid.
3) You are equating something being flipped over with it being damages and that in itself is beyond stupid.



Except I never said that. So now you're stooping to making up arguments on my behalf just so that you can claim they are contradictory?



They only "fail" because you are being intellectually dishonest. And frankly I could care less if they "fail" with you because you aren't looking for the truth.



1) You haven't given any evidence of any violence under even your most tortured definition.
2) You're making the term "violent" so loose that even a hard sneeze could be considered violent.
3) You're claiming I'm making contradictory arguments by making arguments that I've never made.

No. You haven't made any legitimate arguments. At least I haven't seen any.



It doesn't sound relevant to you because you don't understand debate. I was initially responding to someone who claimed to be a Christian. You are someone who's looking for any excuse to tear down Christ no matter how ridiculous your argument is. Obviously anything I say will "fail" with you because you aren't being rational in this regard. Note that I'm not saying that you aren't being rational because you're an atheist. I've known rational atheists and agnostics like Amy. You're not being rational because of the tortured hoops you'll go through to try to make a laughable argument stick. So I have no reason to "tailor" my argument to fit you. No matter what I might say it wouldn't work with you because you aren't being rational.

Well the narrative (bible text) IS the subject, right? I mean YES I am accepting it, but it sure doesn’t justify the actions of Jesus or incriminate the businesspeople. So it’s not at all illogical to accept the narrative but disagree with the actions of Jesus. BTW Jesus was NOT the narrator; the narration was in the form of a witness. As you will see it written below, the witness described the scene and the behavior of Jesus. (Are you aware that this is yet ANOTHER NEW argument from you? I’ve lost count how many you have attempted.)

It’s funny that you bring up my burden of proof, since I’m afraid the evidence comes from your own sacred book. But OK, I will comply in full. See below one of the relevant passages. There, you will read a narrative of Jesus being violent for no good reason. Of course you can argue against common definitions of “violent”, but you won’t be gaining any credibility; especially if you attempt to also argue that overthrowing “the seats of them that sold doves” was not “violent”.

Mark 11:
“15And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

So there you go…nothing from the narrator that incriminates the businesspeople; plenty that incriminates Jesus. Now as far as a legitimate reason for moneychangers to be in the temple, I have repeatedly said that they were currency converters. Because, despite your claim to the contrary, the definition of the term implies that area was full of foreign currencies that required the service. Apparently a lot of different currencies were present in this place that had to be converted before foreigners could buy things. Besides, the second half of our debate (which has not yet begun) deals with the same ethical questions regarding the selling of doves. Are you going to try to claim that selling doves was also inherently deceptive or theft? Good luck with that.

Please explain how my definitions of “violent” were “ridiculous dictionary fishing”, when I used the same dictionary you did and only posted main definitions?

A Ron Paul supporter who raises a sign at a rally and shouts in an agitated way is NOT an example of violent ACTION. Just read the narrative again; Jesus did far more than practice free speech. Any Ron Paul supporter/demonstrator knows about this fundamental difference; and knows not to approach the opposition and overturn their tables and pull their chairs out from underneath them. If you truly think it’s not violent, maybe you should call Ron and tell him to tell members of YAL that it’s now officially OK to overturn the tables and chairs of counterdemonstrators are offering literature and stuff.

“Except I never said that.”
You most certainly DID say those two contradictory things.
In post 135, you said ALL moneychangers were thieves:
“Money changers = thieves…That should be easy for anyone in the Ron Paul movement to understand.”
Then in post 142, you said THESE moneychangers were thieves:
“These weren't ‘trusty’ money changers. They were thieves.”

“You haven't given any evidence of any violence under even your most tortured definition.”
Again, the evidence IS the biblical narrative. As it stands, it incriminates Jesus, not anyone else.

“You're making the term 'violent' so loose that even a hard sneeze could be considered violent.”
Just read back. I pasted main definitions, of the main word of contention, directly from YOUR dictionary. Overturning furniture (esp that is being used), out of anger, and especially chairs people are sitting it – IS VIOLENT.

“You're claiming I'm making contradictory arguments by making arguments that I've never made.”
I pasted your two contradictory quotes above. Are forgetting that your past arguments are available in transcript form?

“You haven't made any legitimate arguments. At least I haven't seen any.”
And that’s the worst of all your many various arguments.

Speaking of your worst, your last paragraph compels me to do a BEST-OF. I only do this to point out the sheer quantity of your inaccurate and unflattering mischaracterizations, since it’s well known that said quantity is inversely proportionate to the degree the poster is able to support his/her position. IOW, if any of what you say below were true, you would spend more time demonstrating it and less time being redundant.

“You're logic lacks so much it's painful.
ridiculous "custom-tailor" dictionary fishing.
wouldn't pass the laugh test in court.
so the above argument is beyond stupid.
so the above argument is beyond stupid.
that in itself is beyond stupid.
now you're stooping to making up arguments.
you are being intellectually dishonest.
you aren't looking for the truth.
You haven't made any legitimate arguments.
you don't understand debate.
You are someone who's looking for any excuse to tear down Christ no matter how ridiculous your argument is.
you aren't being rational in this regard.
You're not being rational because of the tortured hoops you'll go through to try to make a laughable argument stick.
you aren't being rational.”

Wow, that’s quite a collection.

 

[Revolution9]

“You're logic lacks so much it's painful.
ridiculous "custom-tailor" dictionary fishing.
wouldn't pass the laugh test in court.
so the above argument is beyond stupid.
so the above argument is beyond stupid.
that in itself is beyond stupid.
now you're stooping to making up arguments.
you are being intellectually dishonest.
you aren't looking for the truth.
You haven't made any legitimate arguments.
you don't understand debate.
You are someone who's looking for any excuse to tear down Christ no matter how ridiculous your argument is.
you aren't being rational in this regard.
You're not being rational because of the tortured hoops you'll go through to try to make a laughable argument stick.
you aren't being rational.”

Wow, that’s quite a collection.

It certainly is and nails your base gambit to the wall like a deer hide awaiting Colonel Custer's tailor.

Rev9

 

[idirtify]

It certainly is and nails your base gambit to the wall like a deer hide awaiting Colonel Custer's tailor.

Rev9

Other than agreeing with JMD’s accusations, I’m afraid your eloquence fails to provide any more insight into a real basis than JMD did.

 

[MaxPower]

Idirtify, in the Temple incident, Jesus was expelling moneychangers from his own house (or his father's, if you like, with Jesus as executor of the estate). See Matthew Chapter 21, Verse 13:

And he said to them, "It is written, 'my house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves!'"

Note that Jesus did not go around flipping over merchants' tables in the city square or breaking into their private residences and doing so; rather, as God's only begotten son, he executed authority over the property which was designated in a special manner as the earthly domain of God. If you came home tomorrow and encountered someone who had set up shop and begun selling drugs on your front step against your will, you, too, would have every right to flip over their tables and kick them out.

Moreover, going by the record we have, even in this defense of his own property rights, there is no evidence that Jesus committed any "violence" per the definitions "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something" or "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse," which are at the top of the first two results yielded by a Google search. The fact that this is the closest thing to violence you can muster against him is a sure demonstration of the utter weakness of the "Jesus-was-violent" position.

 

[idirtify]

Idirtify, in the Temple incident, Jesus was expelling moneychangers from his own house (or his father's, if you like, with Jesus as executor of the estate). See Matthew Chapter 21, Verse 13:
Note that Jesus did not go around flipping over merchants' tables in the city square or breaking into their private residences and doing so; rather, as God's only begotten son, he executed authority over the property which was designated in a special manner as the earthly domain of God. If you came home tomorrow and encountered someone who had set up shop and begun selling drugs on your front step against your will, you, too, would have every right to flip over their tables and kick them out.

Moreover, going by the record we have, even in this defense of his own property rights, there is no evidence that Jesus committed any "violence" per the definitions "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something" or "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse," which are at the top of the first two results yielded by a Google search. The fact that this is the closest thing to violence you can muster against him is a sure demonstration of the utter weakness of the "Jesus-was-violent" position.

This type of property-rights argument, that he owned all the temples, amuses me. All we know from these passages is that Jesus CLAIMED that it was his house. But that’s no more a fact than his claim that selling doves was theft. Surely you aren’t claiming that Jesus bought or built these temples. Were they even built FOR the Jesus religion? I don’t think so. So when were they built and by whom? Did Jesus seize them by eminent domain or something? I mean short of the all-too-familiar “Jesus was God and omni-dictator so he naturally owned everything” claim, what exactly gave him ownership and therefore property rights? But even giving you your property-rights argument, Jesus didn’t own the people or their doves. IOW if some people trespass onto your property, that doesn’t give you the right to grab their stuff and throw it around.

And the argument over the definition of “violence” is just as baseless; including your claim that the actions of Jesus didn’t qualify according to the top Google result. The top result is from Wikipedia: “Violence is the use of physical force to cause injury, DAMAGE or death”. And your claim that my position is that Jesus was violent by nature is somewhat of a strawman. My only position is that the actions of Jesus in the temple incident were violent and unjustified.

 

[MaxPower]

This type of property-rights argument, that he owned all the temples, amuses me. All we know from these passages is that Jesus CLAIMED that it was his house. But that’s no more a fact than his claim that selling doves was theft. Surely you aren’t claiming that Jesus bought or built these temples. Were they even built FOR the Jesus religion? I don’t think so. So when were they built and by whom? Did Jesus seize them by eminent domain or something? I mean short of the all-too-familiar “Jesus was God and omni-dictator so he naturally owned everything” claim, what exactly gave him ownership and therefore property rights?

1. It seems you are rather ignorant in these matters. There was exactly one Temple relevant to this discussion, which stood at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and was the site of the incident in question. This Temple was constructed in a special sense- as God is spiritually sovereign over everything, but the Temple was designated to him temporally- specifically to serve as God's domain on Earth.

2. My point about property rights quite obviously hinges on the reality of Jesus' status as the son of God; if you wish to argue that his actions at the Temple were unjustified from the premise that he was not the son of God, then the debate reverts to said premise itself.

But even giving you your property-rights argument, Jesus didn’t own the people or their doves. IOW if some people trespass onto your property, that doesn’t give you the right to grab their stuff and throw it around.

If someone has set up structures and brought objects or animals onto your property without your consent, you absolutely have the right to forcibly remove these things- this is property rights 101.

And the argument over the definition of “violence” is just as baseless; including your claim that the actions of Jesus didn’t qualify according to the top Google result. The top result is from Wikipedia: “Violence is the use of physical force to cause injury, DAMAGE or death”. And your claim that my position is that Jesus was violent by nature is somewhat of a strawman. My only position is that the actions of Jesus in the temple incident were violent and unjustified.

There is no evidence that Jesus "damaged" the moneychangers beyond discontinuing their intrusive enterprise, but even if he did, it was a strictly defensive use of force against an illegitimate intrusion, and was only "violence" by the broadest definition; surely you recognize the distinction between "violence" sufficient to evict intruders without causing any physical injury and, say, a murderous, preemptive military occupation.

 

[idirtify]

1. It seems you are rather ignorant in these matters. There was exactly one Temple relevant to this discussion, which stood at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and was the site of the incident in question. This Temple was constructed in a special sense- as God is spiritually sovereign over everything, but the Temple was designated to him temporally- specifically to serve as God's domain on Earth.

2. My point about property rights quite obviously hinges on the reality of Jesus' status as the son of God; if you wish to argue that his actions at the Temple were unjustified from the premise that he was not the son of God, then the debate reverts to said premise itself.


If someone has set up structures and brought objects or animals onto your property without your consent, you absolutely have the right to forcibly remove these things- this is property rights 101.


There is no evidence that Jesus "damaged" the moneychangers beyond discontinuing their intrusive enterprise, but even if he did, it was a strictly defensive use of force against an illegitimate intrusion, and was only "violence" by the broadest definition; surely you recognize the distinction between "violence" sufficient to evict intruders without causing any physical injury and, say, a murderous, preemptive military occupation.

I may be ignorant about the temple, but you haven’t educated me much. I asked about how Jesus came to own it; if he bought or built it, or had it built, or if someone else built it earlier. Your answer is that the temple was “constructed in a special sense- as God is spiritually sovereign over everything, but the Temple was designated to him temporally- specifically to serve as God's domain on Earth”. What the heck does that mean? It doesn’t appear to answer my questions in any direct way.

OK, so Jesus was god (maybe littler than his father-god, but still a god). But if you are basing your augment on the fact that he is a god and therefore can rightfully do anything, why are you advocating any other arguments? Why are you bothering with strained word definitions, radical property rights notions, and/or any details about the temple? If your argument is that he is (the son of) god, then he simply had ultimate rights to treat any mere mortal any way he wanted – and all ethical arguments go out the window.

But anyway, considering that you ARE making other arguments, we will deal with them:
----------------

If someone has set up structures and brought objects or animals onto your property without your consent, you absolutely have the right to forcibly remove these things; but that’s not exactly the issue. Jesus didn’t start removing these people and items; he threw over their tables and chairs (without even asking them to leave) – and we must assume they were sitting in the chairs. So there’s a big difference. If my neighbor brings a lawn chair into my back yard and sits in it, I do not have the right to push over the chair. I only have the right to remove him well after I have asked him to leave; and then the removing would consist of only that - NOT kicking over his chair.

Even if no one was hurt, or no property damaged, the actions would still be considered “violent”. It’s the classic “shoot first and ask questions later”. While you might be a bad shot and miss, the action would still qualify as “violent”. Look at it this way: while all violent actions do not result in a crime/violation (harm or damage), all violent crimes involve violence. IOW, you would be lucky to be a bad shot. So while Jesus may have lucked out and not hurt anyone or damaged anything, his actions were still violent.

And if a trespasser comes on to your property, you cannot claim self-defense as an excuse for getting violent.

I am NOT using the broadest definition of violent. Please go back and re-read. And for you to point out the “distinction between ‘violence’ sufficient to evict intruders without causing any physical injury and, say, a murderous, preemptive military occupation” is just a false dichotomy / strawman. No one is accusing Jesus of the latter, but it’s pretty unlikely that pushing over occupied chairs resulted in no one being hurt.

 

[MaxPower]

I may be ignorant about the temple, but you haven’t educated me much. I asked about how Jesus came to own it; if he bought or built it, or had it built, or if someone else built it earlier. Your answer is that the temple was “constructed in a special sense- as God is spiritually sovereign over everything, but the Temple was designated to him temporally- specifically to serve as God's domain on Earth”. What the heck does that mean? It doesn’t appear to answer my questions in any direct way.

Per the Bible, God specifically chose the site of the original Temple and commissioned King Solomon to build it in the 10th century B.C. It was subsequently destroyed by the Babylonians, and rebuilt around the 6th century B.C. In the context of first-century Judaism, it was the central religious site, considered God's "footstool," to which Jews would make pilgrimages in order to leave offerings and what-have-you. It was the ground designated in a temporal sense to God. This is why Jesus refers to it as "my father's house" or "my house" in Matthew Chapter 21, Mark Chapter 11, Luke Chapters 2 and 19, and John Chapter 2.

OK, so Jesus was god (maybe littler than his father-god, but still a god). But if you are basing your augment on the fact that he is a god and therefore can rightfully do anything, why are you advocating any other arguments? Why are you bothering with strained word definitions, radical property rights notions, and/or any details about the temple? If your argument is that he is (the son of) god, then he simply had ultimate rights to treat any mere mortal any way he wanted – and all ethical arguments go out the window.

You apparently didn't read or consider this point with any depth, or else you are deliberately misconstruing it. I clearly said that my "point about property rights" was contingent upon Jesus' status as the son of God. Since the Temple was specifically the house of God, if Jesus was who Christians believe he was, then he was correct in asserting property rights therein.

If someone has set up structures and brought objects or animals onto your property without your consent, you absolutely have the right to forcibly remove these things; but that’s not exactly the issue. Jesus didn’t start removing these people and items; he threw over their tables and chairs (without even asking them to leave) – and we must assume they were sitting in the chairs. So there’s a big difference. If my neighbor brings a lawn chair into my back yard and sits in it, I do not have the right to push over the chair. I only have the right to remove him well after I have asked him to leave; and then the removing would consist of only that - NOT kicking over his chair.

Even if no one was hurt, or no property damaged, the actions would still be considered “violent”. It’s the classic “shoot first and ask questions later”. While you might be a bad shot and miss, the action would still qualify as “violent”. Look at it this way: while all violent actions do not result in a crime/violation (harm or damage), all violent crimes involve violence. IOW, you would be lucky to be a bad shot. So while Jesus may have lucked out and not hurt anyone or damaged anything, his actions were still violent.

And if a trespasser comes on to your property, you cannot claim self-defense as an excuse for getting violent.

I am NOT using the broadest definition of violent. Please go back and re-read. And for you to point out the “distinction between ‘violence’ sufficient to evict intruders without causing any physical injury and, say, a murderous, preemptive military occupation” is just a false dichotomy / strawman. No one is accusing Jesus of the latter, but it’s pretty unlikely that pushing over occupied chairs resulted in no one being hurt.

1. There is no valid reason to assume Jesus did not initially ask or command the moneychangers to leave; the New Testament only specifically states that he went to the Temple, overturned the tables and what-have-you, but we are talking about a two-sentence summary of his activities, not an in-depth, blow-by-blow account. If I wrote "Ron Paul traveled to Iowa, where he made a speech advocating free markets and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Afterwards, he returned to Washington D.C.," would it be appropriate to infer, say, that Dr. Paul at no time stopped and signed autographs during the trip in question? Of course not; a two-sentence overview of this sort merely highlights major points, and obviously doesn't cover every detail of the event. However, if it would have been in-character for Dr. Paul to sign autographs during such a trip, then it could, in fact, be reasonable to presume that he probably did do so on this particular occasion. Likewise, in the Temple incident, given that Jesus generally displayed a thoroughly peaceable character, and given that this seems like the logical progression of events (you go in-> you see them there-> you tell them to leave-> they refuse-> you overturn their tables), it would hardly be unreasonable to imagine that he likely did first verbally ask or order them to leave.

2. You give no supporting argument for the assertion that we "must assume" they were seated when he overturned their chairs- in point of fact, for reasons I will discuss momentarily, this does not seem probable to me- and even if this were the case, there would be still further no reason to believe that he overturned the chairs so suddenly or swiftly that said individuals were unable to, say, safely stand up. Your interpretation of this passage is highly implausible; if Jesus had actually been knocking down occupied chairs and injuring people in the middle of the crowded, guarded Temple, surely someone would have fought back, or else the guards would have gotten involved, and the incident would have escalated. Instead, however, all we read following this action is that he remained in the Temple, that he set about teaching, performing healings, etc., that his enemies (the chief priests and scribes) were not willing to act publicly against him at the time (hence their waiting to subsequently seize him in the dead of night) because the crowds were on his side, and that they were critical of him for accepting messianic praise from his audience (yet it is never suggested that they offered any similar criticism of his actions toward the moneychangers). What he did with the chairs is referred to with the same term and in the same breath as the overturning of the tables, and not with any special emphasis or modifier as would seem warranted if one of those two things had actually involved knocking over and injuring a person. Jesus acted in a manner which, while not physically injurious, was morally authoritative and stirred public opinion, such that the moneychangers, being widely disliked for dealing in idolatrous Roman coins and for being cheats and swindlers, were shamed into leaving, "tails between their legs," so to speak.

3. I was not making a "false dichotomy/strawman" argument in my note about the contrast between evicting moneychangers and launching preemptive military occupations. Rather, in the context of this thread, which was started to discuss Christians who support violent neoconservative policies and believe Jesus would do so as well, it was a relevant tie-in of our little sub-topic with the broader scope of the discussion; even if we say that Jesus was "violent" in the Temple incident (wherein there is no evidence that he struck or injured anyone), it would still not constitute evidence that he would support neoconservative policies such as, say, a "murderous, preemptive military occupation," as the opening poster's associates would allege.

 

[idirtify]

Per the Bible, God specifically chose the site of the original Temple and commissioned King Solomon to build it in the 10th century B.C. It was subsequently destroyed by the Babylonians, and rebuilt around the 6th century B.C. In the context of first-century Judaism, it was the central religious site, considered God's "footstool," to which Jews would make pilgrimages in order to leave offerings and what-have-you. It was the ground designated in a temporal sense to God. This is why Jesus refers to it as "my father's house" or "my house" in Matthew Chapter 21, Mark Chapter 11, Luke Chapters 2 and 19, and John Chapter 2.


You apparently didn't read or consider this point with any depth, or else you are deliberately misconstruing it. I clearly said that my "point about property rights" was contingent upon Jesus' status as the son of God. Since the Temple was specifically the house of God, if Jesus was who Christians believe he was, then he was correct in asserting property rights therein.


1. There is no valid reason to assume Jesus did not initially ask or command the moneychangers to leave; the New Testament only specifically states that he went to the Temple, overturned the tables and what-have-you, but we are talking about a two-sentence summary of his activities, not an in-depth, blow-by-blow account. If I wrote "Ron Paul traveled to Iowa, where he made a speech advocating free markets and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Afterwards, he returned to Washington D.C.," would it be appropriate to infer, say, that Dr. Paul at no time stopped and signed autographs during the trip in question? Of course not; a two-sentence overview of this sort merely highlights major points, and obviously doesn't cover every detail of the event. However, if it would have been in-character for Dr. Paul to sign autographs during such a trip, then it could, in fact, be reasonable to presume that he probably did do so on this particular occasion. Likewise, in the Temple incident, given that Jesus generally displayed a thoroughly peaceable character, and given that this seems like the logical progression of events (you go in-> you see them there-> you tell them to leave-> they refuse-> you overturn their tables), it would hardly be unreasonable to imagine that he likely did first verbally ask or order them to leave.

2. You give no supporting argument for the assertion that we "must assume" they were seated when he overturned their chairs- in point of fact, for reasons I will discuss momentarily, this does not seem probable to me- and even if this were the case, there would be still further no reason to believe that he overturned the chairs so suddenly or swiftly that said individuals were unable to, say, safely stand up. Your interpretation of this passage is highly implausible; if Jesus had actually been knocking down occupied chairs and injuring people in the middle of the crowded, guarded Temple, surely someone would have fought back, or else the guards would have gotten involved, and the incident would have escalated. Instead, however, all we read following this action is that he remained in the Temple, that he set about teaching, performing healings, etc., that his enemies (the chief priests and scribes) were not willing to act publicly against him at the time (hence their waiting to subsequently seize him in the dead of night) because the crowds were on his side, and that they were critical of him for accepting messianic praise from his audience (yet it is never suggested that they offered any similar criticism of his actions toward the moneychangers). What he did with the chairs is referred to with the same term and in the same breath as the overturning of the tables, and not with any special emphasis or modifier as would seem warranted if one of those two things had actually involved knocking over and injuring a person. Jesus acted in a manner which, while not physically injurious, was morally authoritative and stirred public opinion, such that the moneychangers, being widely disliked for dealing in idolatrous Roman coins and for being cheats and swindlers, were shamed into leaving, "tails between their legs," so to speak.

3. I was not making a "false dichotomy/strawman" argument in my note about the contrast between evicting moneychangers and launching preemptive military occupations. Rather, in the context of this thread, which was started to discuss Christians who support violent neoconservative policies and believe Jesus would do so as well, it was a relevant tie-in of our little sub-topic with the broader scope of the discussion; even if we say that Jesus was "violent" in the Temple incident (wherein there is no evidence that he struck or injured anyone), it would still not constitute evidence that he would support neoconservative policies such as, say, a "murderous, preemptive military occupation," as the opening poster's associates would allege.

OK, let’s all stop making assumptions and discuss the passages as they are worded. I’ll stop assuming people were sitting in the chairs if you stop assuming Jesus asked them to leave before throwing their furniture around. There is simply no information indicating either, and your assumption that Jesus asked first and threw later is certainly no safer than my assumption that people were sitting in the chairs. That pretty much leaves only the property rights issue and the definition of “violent” to deal with. And I can further reduce it by conceding to your position on property rights. So Jesus owned the whole shebang and had property rights – OK. So that leaves only one thing to deal with: whether the actions of Jesus AS REPORTED were “violent”. According to main dictionary definitions, they were; and no property rights that I am aware of would refute this characterization. And remember, even if this temple was the private property of Jesus, it was still open to the public (and if I am correct, a 37-acre public area). While the size may not be important, any owner who acts as Jesus acted would be correctly described as being “violent”. Imagine a restaurant owner coming out into the dining area and suddenly tossing around the furniture of customers who were doing something he didn’t like. And to claim that it wasn’t violent because Jesus was not that kind of person is certainly fallacious; because we aren’t talking about the person, we are talking about the action.

About your previous false dichotomy / strawman: I did not know you were referring to arguments of others. Since you were replying to me, I figured you were replying to my points; which never claimed anything of the sort.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

Jesus was a man...sure he got pissed off and his shit stunk too...thats why they had such a hard time accepting him...unless your friends are homeless,jobless, own no possessions and spend all their time traveling, studying and teaching the kingdom of God then they aren't very Christ like anyway... who needs posers here at the Ron Paul Ranch?

 

[idirtify]

Jesus was a man...sure he got pissed off and his shit stunk too...thats why they had such a hard time accepting him...unless your friends are homeless,jobless, own no possessions and spend all their time traveling, studying and teaching the kingdom of God then they aren't very Christ like anyway... who needs posers here at the Ron Paul Ranch?

“Jesus was a man...sure he got pissed off AND VIOLENT and his shit stunk too”

 

[MaxPower]

OK, let’s all stop making assumptions and discuss the passages as they are worded. I’ll stop assuming people were sitting in the chairs if you stop assuming Jesus asked them to leave before throwing their furniture around. There is simply no information indicating either, and your assumption that Jesus asked first and threw later is certainly no safer than my assumption that people were sitting in the chairs. That pretty much leaves only the property rights issue and the definition of “violent” to deal with. And I can further reduce it by conceding to your position on property rights. So Jesus owned the whole shebang and had property rights – OK. So that leaves only one thing to deal with: whether the actions of Jesus AS REPORTED were “violent”. According to main dictionary definitions, they were; and no property rights that I am aware of would refute this characterization. And remember, even if this temple was the private property of Jesus, it was still open to the public (and if I am correct, a 37-acre public area). While the size may not be important, any owner who acts as Jesus acted would be correctly described as being “violent”. Imagine a restaurant owner coming out into the dining area and suddenly tossing around the furniture of customers who were doing something he didn’t like.

Sure; the account is open to the interpretation that Jesus' actions were "violent" under the terms of a strict dictionary definition (I suppose it would depend on whether said actions were "intended to... damage" the tables and chairs; if they were hard wood and he didn't push them over too forcefully, there would probably be no real damage done). Now, hopefully you recognize that, in spite of the fact that they might both fall within the purview of the same English word, Jesus' actions in the Temple and, say, torture, murder, etc., are nevertheless categorically different types of act. Jesus' status as the Prince of Peace fully holds up even if he cracked a table once; if the most "violent" thing you ever did was push over some swindlers' tables and chairs and tell them to get out of your house, then you're just not very violent. If it is not only the case that the most "violent" thing you did was push over tables and chairs, but also that you consistently condemned and abstained from actions which physically harmed other persons, then it becomes apparent that people who commit or support acts of torture and murder in your name are acting hypocritically. I realize that you never argued that neoconservatism in Jesus' name is right, but I think it is worthwhile to tie in with broader themes, and don't really see what the point of the discussion is if your sole purpose is to nitpick about whether something he once did fell within the scope of a dictionary definition of "violence."

And to claim that it wasn’t violent because Jesus was not that kind of person is certainly fallacious; because we aren’t talking about the person, we are talking about the action.

Not at all what I said; rather, I suggested that the action itself was most likely more along the lines of my interpretation than yours, because, per the context, Jesus seems the sort of person likely to do things the way I suggest than the way you do; consider, here, that we are talking about a man who exhorted his followers to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and turn the other cheek when struck, and who rebuked them for suggesting violence against a village that rejected him, rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of a soldier who was arresting him, and prayed for the forgiveness of the men who were nailing him to a cross. Given this context, would it be rational, in a situation where the evidence is ambiguous, to presume that he acted in a rash, violent, "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" fashion, or to presume that he more likely acted in a character which seems consistent with the rest of his actions? If you heard an account about the actions of a friend of yours, who you know from experience to be gentle as a lamb, which could be interpreted in a couple of ways, one of which seemed rash and over-aggressive, the other reasonable, would you be more inclined to believe the "rash-and-aggressive" interpretation or the "reasonable" one?

About your previous false dichotomy / strawman: I did not know you were referring to arguments of others. Since you were replying to me, I figured you were replying to my points; which never claimed anything of the sort.

Since you were posting in a thread about Jesus and neoconservatism, I assumed that reference to that broader theme was relevant.

 

[idirtify]

Sure; the account is open to the interpretation that Jesus' actions were "violent" under the terms of a strict dictionary definition (I suppose it would depend on whether said actions were "intended to... damage" the tables and chairs; if they were hard wood and he didn't push them over too forcefully, there would probably be no real damage done). Now, hopefully you recognize that, in spite of the fact that they might both fall within the purview of the same English word, Jesus' actions in the Temple and, say, torture, murder, etc., are nevertheless categorically different types of act. Jesus' status as the Prince of Peace fully holds up even if he cracked a table once; if the most "violent" thing you ever did was push over some swindlers' tables and chairs and tell them to get out of your house, then you're just not very violent. If it is not only the case that the most "violent" thing you did was push over tables and chairs, but also that you consistently condemned and abstained from actions which physically harmed other persons, then it becomes apparent that people who commit or support acts of torture and murder in your name are acting hypocritically. I realize that you never argued that neoconservatism in Jesus' name is right, but I think it is worthwhile to tie in with broader themes, and don't really see what the point of the discussion is if your sole purpose is to nitpick about whether something he once did fell within the scope of a dictionary definition of "violence."


Not at all what I said; rather, I suggested that the action itself was most likely more along the lines of my interpretation than yours, because, per the context, Jesus seems the sort of person likely to do things the way I suggest than the way you do; consider, here, that we are talking about a man who exhorted his followers to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and turn the other cheek when struck, and who rebuked them for suggesting violence against a village that rejected him, rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of a soldier who was arresting him, and prayed for the forgiveness of the men who were nailing him to a cross. Given this context, would it be rational, in a situation where the evidence is ambiguous, to presume that he acted in a rash, violent, "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" fashion, or to presume that he more likely acted in a character which seems consistent with the rest of his actions? If you heard an account about the actions of a friend of yours, who you know from experience to be gentle as a lamb, which could be interpreted in a couple of ways, one of which seemed rash and over-aggressive, the other reasonable, would you be more inclined to believe the "rash-and-aggressive" interpretation or the "reasonable" one?


Since you were posting in a thread about Jesus and neoconservatism, I assumed that reference to that broader theme was relevant.

You don’t see the point? Well that’s pretty strange, considering that my purpose not only appears to be the same as yours but is also the most common one on RPF: disagreement. To put it even more simply: My purpose for argument is because the action obviously DOES fall within the scope of the definition of ‘violence’, yet you and others have disagreed.

You start your second response by denying you previously talked about the person of Jesus to try to excuse his violent action, but then you proceed to delve deeply into his person to excuse his violence AGAIN. Look…calling it “context” doesn’t work. Throwing furniture is throwing furniture. And if his “intent” was anything, it was to initiate aggression against others.

Forget about the “broader theme” when you post a direct disagreement in the form of a quote, where the only thing relevant is your opponent’s post.

 

[MaxPower]

You don’t see the point? Well that’s pretty strange, considering that my purpose not only appears to be the same as yours but is also the most common one on RPF: disagreement.

I think the most common purpose pursued on Ron Paul Forums is to promote the candidacy of Ron Paul and liberty in general.

To put it even more simply: My purpose for argument is because the action obviously DOES fall within the scope of the definition of ‘violence’, yet you and others have disagreed.

I do not think it "obviously" falls therein, though it can be read that way. As I said before, if these were sturdy hard wood tables and chairs, it would have been very hard to damage them simply by overturning them, in which case the actions would probably not fall within the category of "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

You start your second response by denying you previously talked about the person of Jesus to try to excuse his violent action, but then you proceed to delve deeply into his person to excuse his violence AGAIN. Look…calling it “context” doesn’t work. Throwing furniture is throwing furniture. And if his “intent” was anything, it was to initiate aggression against others.

You are passing over the logical argument I am making in favor of addressing an altogether different one; you seem to be growing over-excited to the point at which it may be clouding your reasoning faculties.
Here is what you think I have been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and therefore actions which would be violent if someone else did them were not violent when he did them."
Here is what I have actually been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and it is thus reasonable to believe, given an account which is open to multiple interpretations, that he probably acted in a less-violent rather than more-violent fashion."

This is entirely logical, as you yourself would recognize in most any other situation. If, say, you read that Ron Paul cast a vote in Congress which sounded at first blush as though it were contradictory to his well-established political principles, it is likely you would think, even without proof, that there was probably some reason, consistent with Dr. Paul's principles, that he voted the way he did. For example, knowing that Ron Paul opposes a federal definition of marriage and believes the issue should be decided at the state level (where he ultimately thinks it should be left to the private sector altogether), I was surprised to hear that he supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill called the "Defense of Marriage Act." However, even before learning anything more about the issue, I considered it probable that there was a reason he supported the bill which was consistent with his established positions and principles, because I know what said positions and principles are and I know that Ron Paul generally acts consistently with them. I later learned that although the Defense of Marriage Act was written to fight gay marriage, it only goes so far in practice as to say that one state cannot be forced to recognize another state's gay marriages, which is entirely consistent with Dr. Paul's agenda. Hence, even though one could construe from reading a brief statement such as "Ron Paul supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill entitled the Defense of Marriage Act, and criticized the Obama administration for failing to defend it" that Ron Paul voted in a manner which contradicted his stated position on the issue, it was, in fact, more reasonable to presume that Dr. Paul probably did not simply straightforwardly violate his espoused principles. I am doing essentially the same thing regarding Jesus and the Temple incident; based on everything we know about Jesus' beliefs, character and actions, it seems more likely to me that he, say, saw the moneychangers in his house, confronted them verbally, and only began overturning their tables- probably not in a substantively damaging fashion- once they had failed to respond to his injunctions than it does that he came up, flew into a berserker-style rage and began slamming and breaking things without a word.

Forget about the “broader theme” when you post a direct disagreement in the form of a quote, where the only thing relevant is your opponent’s post.

Consider:
1. I open a thread and read the opening post, which is about Christians who support neoconservatism, and whether or not they can consistently claim to be followers of Jesus while doing so.
2. After reading the first page, I cut to the most recent page, on which I find someone arguing that Jesus acted violently.
Was it not reasonable to think that you might be attempting to imply that Jesus would support neoconservatism? Furthermore, since this is a thread founded to discuss that issue, even if you were not, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the benefit of third parties who may be reading these posts that I discuss how our little sub-topic relates to the thread's overall topic.

 

[idirtify]

I think the most common purpose pursued on Ron Paul Forums is to promote the candidacy of Ron Paul and liberty in general.


I do not think it "obviously" falls therein, though it can be read that way. As I said before, if these were sturdy hard wood tables and chairs, it would have been very hard to damage them simply by overturning them, in which case the actions would probably not fall within the category of "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."


You are passing over the logical argument I am making in favor of addressing an altogether different one; you seem to be growing over-excited to the point at which it may be clouding your reasoning faculties.
Here is what you think I have been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and therefore actions which would be violent if someone else did them were not violent when he did them."
Here is what I have actually been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and it is thus reasonable to believe, given an account which is open to multiple interpretations, that he probably acted in a less-violent rather than more-violent fashion."

This is entirely logical, as you yourself would recognize in most any other situation. If, say, you read that Ron Paul cast a vote in Congress which sounded at first blush as though it were contradictory to his well-established political principles, it is likely you would think, even without proof, that there was probably some reason, consistent with Dr. Paul's principles, that he voted the way he did. For example, knowing that Ron Paul opposes a federal definition of marriage and believes the issue should be decided at the state level (where he ultimately thinks it should be left to the private sector altogether), I was surprised to hear that he supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill called the "Defense of Marriage Act." However, even before learning anything more about the issue, I considered it probable that there was a reason he supported the bill which was consistent with his established positions and principles, because I know what said positions and principles are and I know that Ron Paul generally acts consistently with them. I later learned that although the Defense of Marriage Act was written to fight gay marriage, it only goes so far in practice as to say that one state cannot be forced to recognize another state's gay marriages, which is entirely consistent with Dr. Paul's agenda. Hence, even though one could construe from reading a brief statement such as "Ron Paul supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill entitled the Defense of Marriage Act, and criticized the Obama administration for failing to defend it" that Ron Paul voted in a manner which contradicted his stated position on the issue, it was, in fact, more reasonable to presume that Dr. Paul probably did not simply straightforwardly violate his espoused principles. I am doing essentially the same thing regarding Jesus and the Temple incident; based on everything we know about Jesus' beliefs, character and actions, it seems more likely to me that he, say, saw the moneychangers in his house, confronted them verbally, and only began overturning their tables- probably not in a substantively damaging fashion- once they had failed to respond to his injunctions than it does that he came up, flew into a berserker-style rage and began slamming and breaking things without a word.



Consider:
1. I open a thread and read the opening post, which is about Christians who support neoconservatism, and whether or not they can consistently claim to be followers of Jesus while doing so.
2. After reading the first page, I cut to the most recent page, on which I find someone arguing that Jesus acted violently.
Was it not reasonable to think that you might be attempting to imply that Jesus would support neoconservatism? Furthermore, since this is a thread founded to discuss that issue, even if you were not, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the benefit of third parties who may be reading these posts that I discuss how our little sub-topic relates to the thread's overall topic.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, most disagreements in RPF could also be for the purpose of promoting the principles of RP/liberty. And worded otherwise, most of the posts for that purpose contain disagreements. BTW, your own claim about this is a disagreement.

It doesn’t matter if no thing or person was damaged in the temple. If someone throws your furniture around to chase you away, it’s violent. As far as intent, it was aggression. And if no thing or person was damaged, it was only accidental. When you start throwing furniture around, you can’t know that nothing harmful will happen. What will you claim now; that Jesus knew the future? LOL.

I have said nothing about the person of Jesus, only the actions. You are making another strawman. OTOH, you HAVE said a lot about the person of Jesus – in order to try to minimize his actions as non-violent. But I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do, no matter how hard you try, to change the wording of the passages that describe the action in temple incident as something truly violent.

Your analogy of RP voting is not analogous to the action described in the temple incident. An accurate analogy would be if he were to go over to some opponents area and toss their computers and push over their desks.

Once again you demonstrate that the only way you can support your position is by adding something to the passages that is simply not there (that he first asked them to leave). I thought we were debating the passages AS THEY WERE WRITTEN.

GIVE IT UP. You can’t strawman an opponent’s position in a direct quote-reply and then later turn around and claim you weren’t addressing him – and remain credible.

 

[idirtify]

I think the most common purpose pursued on Ron Paul Forums is to promote the candidacy of Ron Paul and liberty in general.


I do not think it "obviously" falls therein, though it can be read that way. As I said before, if these were sturdy hard wood tables and chairs, it would have been very hard to damage them simply by overturning them, in which case the actions would probably not fall within the category of "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."


You are passing over the logical argument I am making in favor of addressing an altogether different one; you seem to be growing over-excited to the point at which it may be clouding your reasoning faculties.
Here is what you think I have been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and therefore actions which would be violent if someone else did them were not violent when he did them."
Here is what I have actually been saying:
"Jesus was a non-violent person, and it is thus reasonable to believe, given an account which is open to multiple interpretations, that he probably acted in a less-violent rather than more-violent fashion."

This is entirely logical, as you yourself would recognize in most any other situation. If, say, you read that Ron Paul cast a vote in Congress which sounded at first blush as though it were contradictory to his well-established political principles, it is likely you would think, even without proof, that there was probably some reason, consistent with Dr. Paul's principles, that he voted the way he did. For example, knowing that Ron Paul opposes a federal definition of marriage and believes the issue should be decided at the state level (where he ultimately thinks it should be left to the private sector altogether), I was surprised to hear that he supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill called the "Defense of Marriage Act." However, even before learning anything more about the issue, I considered it probable that there was a reason he supported the bill which was consistent with his established positions and principles, because I know what said positions and principles are and I know that Ron Paul generally acts consistently with them. I later learned that although the Defense of Marriage Act was written to fight gay marriage, it only goes so far in practice as to say that one state cannot be forced to recognize another state's gay marriages, which is entirely consistent with Dr. Paul's agenda. Hence, even though one could construe from reading a brief statement such as "Ron Paul supported a federal anti-gay-marriage bill entitled the Defense of Marriage Act, and criticized the Obama administration for failing to defend it" that Ron Paul voted in a manner which contradicted his stated position on the issue, it was, in fact, more reasonable to presume that Dr. Paul probably did not simply straightforwardly violate his espoused principles. I am doing essentially the same thing regarding Jesus and the Temple incident; based on everything we know about Jesus' beliefs, character and actions, it seems more likely to me that he, say, saw the moneychangers in his house, confronted them verbally, and only began overturning their tables- probably not in a substantively damaging fashion- once they had failed to respond to his injunctions than it does that he came up, flew into a berserker-style rage and began slamming and breaking things without a word.



Consider:
1. I open a thread and read the opening post, which is about Christians who support neoconservatism, and whether or not they can consistently claim to be followers of Jesus while doing so.
2. After reading the first page, I cut to the most recent page, on which I find someone arguing that Jesus acted violently.
Was it not reasonable to think that you might be attempting to imply that Jesus would support neoconservatism? Furthermore, since this is a thread founded to discuss that issue, even if you were not, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the benefit of third parties who may be reading these posts that I discuss how our little sub-topic relates to the thread's overall topic.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, most disagreements in RPF could also be for the purpose of promoting the principles of RP/liberty. And worded otherwise, most of the posts for that purpose contain disagreements. BTW, your own claim about this is a disagreement.

It doesn’t matter if no thing or person was damaged in the temple. If someone throws your furniture around to chase you away, it’s violent. As far as intent, it was aggression. And if no thing or person was damaged, it was only accidental. When you start throwing furniture around, you can’t know that nothing harmful will happen. What will you claim now; that Jesus knew the future? LOL.

I have said nothing about the person of Jesus, only the actions. You are making another strawman. OTOH, you HAVE said a lot about the person of Jesus – in order to try to minimize his actions as non-violent. But I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do, no matter how hard you try, to change the wording of the passages that describe the action in temple incident as something truly violent.

Your analogy of RP voting is not analogous to the action described in the temple incident. An accurate analogy would be if he were to go over to some opponents area and toss their computers and push over their desks.

Once again you demonstrate that the only way you can support your position is by adding something to the passages that is simply not there (that he first asked them to leave). I thought we were debating the passages AS THEY WERE WRITTEN.

GIVE IT UP. You can’t strawman an opponent’s position in a direct quote-reply and then later turn around and claim you weren’t addressing him – and remain credible.

 

[jmdrake]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. It's obvious to any objective thinking person who's not pushing an agenda that there is nothing "violent" over tipping over an inanimate object without damaging it. If someone wants to insist that something that's not violent is somehow violent they're simply going to believe what they want to believe.