Do you believe in God?

[CodeRedR51]

Remember, God was before the Universe, in fact He created it. Can't beat that as far as reach and scope goes.

So who created him? Surely he didn't just pop up out of nowhere because magic.

 

[Hun200kmh]

If God was created He wouldn't be God, would He? That's the whole point about God, Him being the creator, not another creation, even if the first of many.

 

[Swagger897]

Even some of the Greek God's were created....

 

[FoRiZon]

Even some of the Greek God's were created....

I'm always thought Greek Gods are actually what counts as Ministries today

 

[Scaff]

As for this planet, it had to start somewhere. As for other planets, in other parts of the galaxy, I'm curious to hear what news you have about the absence of God's manifestations there? Or is it faith that tells you nothing happened out there in other parts of the Galaxy?

Way to miss the point.

Why do none of his texts mention any area outside of a very small part of the middle east?

That's the point, its far from universal, given that it failed to cover even a fraction of the planet we are on, let alone anything beyond that.

But of course He does have far greater reach and scope than that. Remember, God was before the Universe, in fact He created it. Can't beat that as far as reach and scope goes.

Logical fallacy, assumes the word of the Bible is true to prove that the word of the Bible is true.

Remember we have a massive amount of evidence for he universe, we have none for God(s).

If God was created He wouldn't be God, would He? That's the whole point about God, Him being the creator, not another creation, even if the first of many.

He wasn't the first of many if you look at the origins of the Jewish God (who lead to the Christian and Islamic God) he started out as one of the Canaanite pantheon, before his followers split off, considering him the one true God and anyone who followed the other Canaanite Gods to be a heretic who needed putting to death if they didn't convert.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So, if I'm getting this straight (and there's a lot of really arbitrary ridiculous detail in there), the believers will never again be free to go kill the infidels according to Christianity. They were once, before Christ, but not again.

Misinterpreted my point. Christians didn't exist before Christ, and besides we are not commanded to kill infidels, or anybody for that matter (unless they were judged with committing murder, rape, homosexuality, beastality and incest under Messianic law). Since Christ came, we didn't need to abide by Messianic law anymore.

 

[Scaff]

Misinterpreted my point. Christians didn't exist before Christ, and besides we are not commanded to kill infidels, or anybody for that matter (unless they were judged with committing murder, rape, homosexuality, beastality and incest under Messianic law). Since Christ came, we didn't need to abide by Messianic law anymore.

Then why does Jesus say exactly the opposite in Matthew, why do the Ten Commandments still get taught and hang in churches?

It seems to me that Christians do follow these laws, they just seem to cherry pick from them on a totally arbitrary basis.

 

[Danoff]

Misinterpreted my point. Christians didn't exist before Christ,

People who believed in your God existed before Christ.

and besides we are not commanded to kill infidels, or anybody for that matter (unless they were judged with committing murder, rape, homosexuality, beastality and incest under Messianic law). Since Christ came, we didn't need to abide by Messianic law anymore.

...the people who believed in your God before Christ were commanded to kill the infidels (and rape their women) (cited previously and below).

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Then why does Jesus say exactly the opposite in Matthew, why do the Ten Commandments still get taught and hang in churches?

It seems to me that Christians do follow these laws, they just seem to cherry pick from them on a totally arbitrary basis.

Because Jesus was there to fulfill the law, and graft in the Gentiles into God's grace.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

People who believed in your God existed before Christ.

Yes, as Jews! What I was saying was that Christianity didn't exist until AFTER Christ. So please don't try to lump in Jews back in ancient times as Christians today.

...the people who believed in your God before Christ were commanded to kill the infidels (and rape their women) (cited previously and below).

Did you take context into account?

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Do you want to know why Israel went to war with the Midianites?

1 And Israel abode in ****tim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.

5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

There was a plague among the Israelites because some of them bowed the knee to Baal-peor, a false god. It was only stopped when Phinehas slew Zimri of the tribe of Simeon and Cozibi, a woman from one of the chief houses of Midian.

As a result:

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Numbers 31 is the end result of that war, which they didn't fulfill God's command.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So please don't try to lump in Jews back in ancient times as Christians today.

Surely once it's been written it's always the way?

 

[Scaff]

Because Jesus was there to fulfill the law, and graft in the Gentiles into God's grace.

So the old testament laws still stand, because you don't get to both dismiss them and retain them without arbitrary cherry picking.

Yes, as Jews! What I was saying was that Christianity didn't exist until AFTER Christ. So please don't try to lump in Jews back in ancient times as Christians today.

We don't, Christians do by continuing to include a Jewish based text in its cannon.

Did you take context into account

Context excuses rape, murder and slavery on a mass scale?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, as Jews! What I was saying was that Christianity didn't exist until AFTER Christ. So please don't try to lump in Jews back in ancient times as Christians today.

I didn't.

Did you take context into account?

Yes.

Do you want to know why Israel went to war with the Midianites?



There was a plague among the Israelites because some of them bowed the knee to Baal-peor, a false god. It was only stopped when Phinehas slew Zimri of the tribe of Simeon and Cozibi, a woman from one of the chief houses of Midian.

Let's kill them and rape their children.

 

[justin credible]

Let those who want to believe believe and let the rest do as they wish.
I have being having a good read up on the bible and god and basically it comes down to free will.
Arguments for and against will rage on but there is so much good to be held by believers they feel fine with there beliefs.
As with everything there is a down side but to dismiss everything which has a down side in it's history would leave us standing very alone in a very quiet place.
What was that saying "he who without sin cast the first stone" I doubt many could raise their arm to cast a stone in the modern world.
As you all know by my posts I refuted the bible and god but after reading up on it and by accident sitting next to a vicar down our local and asking him about it all, on which he was only to happy to give an open and honest account for a good evenings chatting I have a different view.
I can be mocked or I can be praised for seeing what I believe but at the end of the day I am happy with it so far.

 

[RacerTed]

Since humans cannot photosynthesize nor become anoxic, then they clearly do not satisfy the "200 things which are required for life". Of course, we humans are better than all that...we made deities.

This isn't even going into how non-living things that are "complex" all came from desperate things which were either less complex due to simplicity, or were over-complex and fell out of fashion (or funding).

The '200 things' isn't talking about human life (wish I knew where to find that). It was talking about how 200 things had to be in place for life to exist on this planet whether it photosynthesized or not.

 

[DCP]

Oh my, The atheist boys are back asking silly questions, always ignoring the point that convicts their hearts.
Guys, you are soon to die and remember nothing, nada. Why still wasting time arguing on something you don't believe in?
Come guys, I know you are smarter than this. Scaff, danoff?

You will remember none of this when you perish, whenever that will be. Is there nothing else you want to scoff at?

The ten commandments are from God, and the two Christ mentioned are the most important. You will see that they are part of the ten commandments.

The sacrificial law given by Moses, where for the Jews in the OT.
The sacrifice of Christ destroyed all sacrifices and laws once and for all. Mankind is redeemed by the Perfect blood of Christ, whom so ever chooses to be saved.

You can choose to ignore this and move on, or continue scoffing and fulfilling scripture that have reached the ends of the world. Either way, you gonna forget these things when you die, remember?

 

[Hun200kmh]

He wasn't the first of many if you look at the origins of the Jewish God (who lead to the Christian and Islamic God) he started out as one of the Canaanite pantheon, before his followers split off, considering him the one true God and anyone who followed the other Canaanite Gods to be a heretic who needed putting to death if they didn't convert.

Do you really think that I think God is MY God? That I have taken custody of Him? That I have claimed Him to be mine? And that, therefore, MY God isn't Allah or the Canaanite one? Or that His name matters? Or that whoever before Abraham had faith in Him negates that the God I believe in is the Creator of the Universe?

Religion is a human reality, as flawed as humans are. We TRY to reach out to God through whatever imperfect means we have, and we need to organize to do it. Our organizations, albeit inspired by God, are ours, not His.

I see that derision has become the main tone atheists throw at believers. It's still patronizing, but I can live with that. Mainly because , in a way, I feel myself to be similarly condescending towards atheists (shouldn't be, I know, I know).

 

[Scaff]

Oh my, The atheist boys are back asking silly questions, always ignoring the point that convicts their hearts.
Guys, you are soon to die and remember nothing, nada. Why still wasting time arguing on something you don't believe in?
Come guys, I know you are smarter than this. Scaff, danoff?

You will remember none of this when you perish, whenever that will be. Is there nothing else you want to scoff at?

I've ignored no point at all, nor does your point carry any weight at all. I will use my time on earth to discuss what I wish, with whom I wish and you don't get to try and dismiss that simply because you are unable to support your own beliefs.

The ten commandments are from God, and the two Christ mentioned are the most important. You will see that they are part of the ten commandments.

And how does that change the fact that the other eight, which are OT laws and you claim and longer apply, are still part of Christian dogma?

If what you claim is true (that the old laws were removed because Jesus died pure and for our sins) then they should form no part of current teaching and guidance. Yet to this day Christians the world over are told to follow the Ten Commandments, Jewish laws that you claim have been replaced. Its utterly contradictory.

The sacrificial law given by Moses, where for the Jews in the OT.
The sacrifice of Christ destroyed all sacrifices and laws once and for all. Mankind is redeemed by the Perfect blood of Christ, whom so ever chooses to be saved.

Ahh the perfect Jesus died for our sins and wiped the slate clean removing the old laws. Two slight problems with that are the lack of perfection from Jesus (cursing plants because the don't bear fruit out of season and physical assault to name two) and the continued inclusion of the OT law in Christian dogma and credo.

You can choose to ignore this and move on, or continue scoffing and fulfilling scripture that have reached the ends of the world. Either way, you gonna forget these things when you die, remember?

You don't get to tell others waht they can and can't post about, so stop trying to do so.

Do you really think that I think God is MY God? That I have taken custody of Him? That I have claimed Him to be mine? And that, therefore, MY God isn't Allah or the Canaanite one? Or that His name matters? Or that whoever before Abraham had faith in Him negates that the God I believe in is the Creator of the Universe?

Religion is a human reality, as flawed as humans are. We TRY to reach out to God through whatever imperfect means we have, and we need to organize to do it. Our organizations, albeit inspired by God, are ours, not His.

Once again you miss the point, factually the Jewish God (who is the origin of all Abrahamic versions) was not the first God, or the first anything. The body of evidence for claimed Gods and the existence of the world/galaxy/universe than predate the first mention of Abrahamic god and faith is overwhelming.

Nothing at all (beside blind faith and a single bronze age text) supports a claim that he was the first of anything.

I see that derision has become the main tone atheists throw at believers. It's still patronizing, but I can live with that. Mainly because , in a way, I feel myself to be similarly condescending towards atheists (shouldn't be, I know, I know).

Its not derision, its genuine questions.

How can a God be claimed to be the first creation when the volume of evidence that shows billions of things existed before the first mention of him is overwhelming?

How can the OT laws be replaced by the new covenant when Jesus didn't die perfect and Christians still use parts of the OT laws as a\ key basis for teaching what is right and wrong (and hang them in every Church as a reminder?

This isn't derision, but genuine questions that point to what seems to be clear contradictions in both evidence and dogma.

 

[ryzno]

Oh my, The atheist boys are back asking silly questions, always ignoring the point that convicts their hearts.
Guys, you are soon to die and remember nothing, nada. Why still wasting time arguing on something you don't believe in?
Come guys, I know you are smarter than this. Scaff, danoff?

You will remember none of this when you perish, whenever that will be. Is there nothing else you want to scoff at?

The ten commandments are from God, and the two Christ mentioned are the most important. You will see that they are part of the ten commandments.

The sacrificial law given by Moses, where for the Jews in the OT.
The sacrifice of Christ destroyed all sacrifices and laws once and for all. Mankind is redeemed by the Perfect blood of Christ, whom so ever chooses to be saved.

You can choose to ignore this and move on, or continue scoffing and fulfilling scripture that have reached the ends of the world. Either way, you gonna forget these things when you die, remember?

If we're all going to die and not remember anything, why waste your time trying to please a God?

 

[Danoff]

Oh my, The atheist boys are back asking silly questions, always ignoring the point that convicts their hearts.
Guys, you are soon to die and remember nothing, nada. Why still wasting time arguing on something you don't believe in?
Come guys, I know you are smarter than this. Scaff, danoff?

You will remember none of this when you perish, whenever that will be. Is there nothing else you want to scoff at?

The ten commandments are from God, and the two Christ mentioned are the most important. You will see that they are part of the ten commandments.

The sacrificial law given by Moses, where for the Jews in the OT.
The sacrifice of Christ destroyed all sacrifices and laws once and for all. Mankind is redeemed by the Perfect blood of Christ, whom so ever chooses to be saved.

You can choose to ignore this and move on, or continue scoffing and fulfilling scripture that have reached the ends of the world. Either way, you gonna forget these things when you die, remember?

As I expected.. no response to my question.

Why do you worship a God who has condoned, at any point in time, to any people, for any reason, to seize the virgin girls of their enemies, slaughter the rest, and keep the virgins "for yourself"? In the US someone who seizes and rapes the children of the enemies they slaughter is called a rapist, murderer, and pedophile and is given about the worst conviction we can muster. That person would be the worst among us, yet you worship someone who condones and encourages this behavior and call him the source of perfect morality.

Feel free not to respond to this either (I know you like ignoring things that don't fit nicely into your view of your religion). Just let it stew in the back of your mind that your God is the God of rapists and pedophiles. Just let it gnaw at you when you're at church that your perfect morality condoned barbarism of the worst kind. Keep in mind too that your God is without time, he sees all across all time, and so his take on morality is exactly the same today and will always be the same as when he was cool with Moses rounding up the little girls, slaughtering their parents and brothers, and enslaving them. That's your God, right now. Christ did not change his take on morality, Christ just brokered a deal, and apparently a temporary one.

 

[huskeR32]

I see that derision has become the main tone atheists throw at believers.

It really is lovely of theists to always stick to the high road. Oh, wait...

 

[Johnnypenso]

It really is lovely of theists to always stick to the high road. Oh, wait...

If he jumps off a cliff are you going to jump too?

 

[RalliArt/////]

Ahh the perfect Jesus died for our sins and wiped the slate clean removing the old laws. Two slight problems with that are the lack of perfection from Jesus (cursing plants because the don't bear fruit out of season and physical assault to name two)...

Not to mention the time Jesus beat the 🤬 out of a bunch of people with what is an instrument of torture, or promised to come back with a bloody big sword to sort out sinners!

How can the OT laws be replaced by the new covenant when Jesus didn't die perfect...

I presume you're thinking of John 2:15 in relation to Jesus "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."
If not, can you quote the scripture?

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Two slight problems with that are the lack of perfection from Jesus (cursing plants because the don't bear fruit out of season...

Firstly it was a lesson of faith for Jesus disciples.

Mark 11:20-22, 24 As they were walking back in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from its roots. Peter remembered it and said, Look Rabbi! The fig tree You cursed has withered. Have faith in God, Jesus said to them..Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


The tree also represented the Jewish nation that had the appearance of of being fruitful, but it was not producing anything for God's glory.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-fig-tree.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html

 

[Scaff]

I presume you're thinking of John 2:15 in relation to Jesus "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."
If not, can you quote the scripture?

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.


Firstly it was a lesson of faith for Jesus disciples.

Mark 11:20-22, 24 As they were walking back in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from its roots. Peter remembered it and said, Look Rabbi! The fig tree You cursed has withered. Have faith in God, Jesus said to them..Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


The tree also represented the Jewish nation that had the appearance of of being fruitful, but it was not producing anything for God's glory.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-fig-tree.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html

I know, and?

He used a scourge, they don't tickle people you know; and cursing a planet to wither to prove a theological point is quite frankly a dick move of some order.

Jesus also has very little issue with his dad (who is also himself) killing people, him being OK with this is a common theme in a number of the books of the New Testament. It includes chiding Jews for not killing kids who are not respectful of parents, saying towns that don't accept him will suffer worse fates than Sodom and Gomorrah, promoting self mutilation and anyone who didn't do what he said was going to "into everlasting fire".

 

[RalliArt/////]

I know, and?

He used a scourge, they don't tickle people you know;

He didn’t. It doesn't even say he struck the animals, much less, "beating a bunch of people" like you say.

"Second, there is simply no indication in any of the Gospels that Jesus resorted to violence when he cleansed the Temple. Yes, the texts suggest that Jesus was angry, and yes, John tells us that Jesus made a whip (Jn 2:15). But there is no suggestion that he used it to strike any animal or person. To the contrary, throughout history cracking a whip has been a commonly used means of controlling the movement of animals, and John explicitly reports that this is what Jesus used it for. He used the whip to create an animal stampede of “both sheep and cattle” out of the “temple courts” (Jn 2:15). Not only this, but had Jesus actually whipped any of the court officials, it is hard to imagine how he could have avoided being arrested on the spot. It is also hard to imagine how he could have avoided the charge of hypocrisy, for such behavior would have flown in the face of his previously mentioned public teachings about refraining from violence."

http://reknew.org/2016/01/the-cleansing-of-the-temple-and-non-violence/

...and cursing a planet to wither to prove a theological point is quite frankly a dick move of some order.

Your point was that Jesus was showing a “lack of perfection” for cursing the fig tree, explain please.
Calling it a "dick move of some order" seems to me you have abnormally strong feelings towards trees.

Jesus also has very little issue with his dad (who is also himself) killing people, him being OK with this is a common theme in a number of the books of the New Testament. It includes chiding Jews for not killing kids who are not respectful of parents, saying towns that don't accept him will suffer worse fates than Sodom and Gomorrah, promoting self mutilation and anyone who didn't do what he said was going to "into everlasting fire".

I’ll comment on this if you quote the verses you’re referring to.

I believe God and Jesus are separate BTW.

 

[Scaff]

He didn’t. It doesn't even say he struck the animals, much less, "beating a bunch of people" like you say.

"Second, there is simply no indication in any of the Gospels that Jesus resorted to violence when he cleansed the Temple. Yes, the texts suggest that Jesus was angry, and yes, John tells us that Jesus made a whip (Jn 2:15). But there is no suggestion that he used it to strike any animal or person. To the contrary, throughout history cracking a whip has been a commonly used means of controlling the movement of animals, and John explicitly reports that this is what Jesus used it for. He used the whip to create an animal stampede of “both sheep and cattle” out of the “temple courts” (Jn 2:15). Not only this, but had Jesus actually whipped any of the court officials, it is hard to imagine how he could have avoided being arrested on the spot. It is also hard to imagine how he could have avoided the charge of hypocrisy, for such behavior would have flown in the face of his previously mentioned public teachings about refraining from violence."

http://reknew.org/2016/01/the-cleansing-of-the-temple-and-non-violence/

You seem to be unaware that a scourge is not a form of whip that can be cracked (and that it what its described as in the earliest texts), rather its a very specific tool designed for causing as much pain and suffering when used as possible. It is in essence an instrument of torture.

As such it can be used as the apologist piece you cite suggests, nor would his actions have required him to strike anyone to be arrested. Jewish law at the time (as in OT law) would have seen him guilty simply for his actions.

Regardless, his actions could in now way have been described as non-violent.

Your point was that Jesus was showing a “lack of perfection” for cursing the fig tree, explain please.
Calling it a "dick move of some order" seems to me you have abnormally strong feelings towards trees.

Someone perfect in action and word would not need to cause the death of anything to illustrate his point.

It has nothing at all to do with me and trees.

I’ll comment on this if you quote the verses you’re referring to.

Feel free, its quite a few of them, many of them repeated across a range of books.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

I believe God and Jesus are separate BTW.

Christian doctrine disagrees with you, a lot.

 

[RalliArt/////]

You seem to be unaware that a scourge is not a form of whip that can be cracked (and that it what its described as in the earliest texts), rather its a very specific tool designed for causing as much pain and suffering when used as possible. It is in essence an instrument of torture.

As such it can be used as the apologist piece you cite suggests, nor would his actions have required him to strike anyone to be arrested. Jewish law at the time (as in OT law) would have seen him guilty simply for his actions.

Regardless, his actions could in now way have been described as non-violent.

You seem to be dodging the main issue here. You said Jesus was imperfect for "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."

I said... "He didn’t. It doesn't even say he struck the animals, much less, "beating a bunch of people" like you say."

You haven't defended your point.

Someone perfect in action and word would not need to cause the death of anything to illustrate his point.

It has nothing at all to do with me and trees.

Saying Jesus was imperfect (and calling it "dick move of some order") for withering a tree is just laughable to me.
Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?

Feel free, its quite a few of them, many of them repeated across a range of books.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

What does that link have to do with this...

Jesus also has very little issue with his dad (who is also himself) killing people, him being OK with this is a common theme in a number of the books of the New Testament. It includes chiding Jews for not killing kids who are not respectful of parents, saying towns that don't accept him will suffer worse fates than Sodom and Gomorrah, promoting self mutilation and anyone who didn't do what he said was going to "into everlasting fire".

I said "I’ll comment on this if you quote the verses you’re referring to."

Back up your comment with what the Bible actually says (4 verses should do it), instead of posting a link too 100 random verses.

Christian doctrine disagrees with you, a lot.

"Christian" doctrine does disagree with me, a lot.

Matthew 15:8 These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

1 John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

1 Timothy 1:7 They want to be teachers of the Law, yet they do not understand either what they are talking about or the things about which they speak so confidently.

 

[Scaff]

You seem to be dodging the main issue here. You said Jesus was imperfect for "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."

I said... "He didn’t. It doesn't even say he struck the animals, much less, "beating a bunch of people" like you say."

You haven't defended your point.

So he drove out hundreds of people (and given that it was Passover it may have been more), including the temple guards simply by waving his arms in the air and using harsh words?

The use of violence and force is implicit in the text. Why make a scourge if your not going to use it? It can't be cracked and certainly can't be used to herd animals without inflicting harm. The text however state that he drove them out, how exactly did he do that to hundreds of people and associated animals without using the instrument that is so specifically described in the manner in which it is intended (and if that's the case then its inclusion in the text is pointless.

You also forget that even if violence in deed was not committed (and I would argue that overturning tables is a violent act), Jesus himself was quite specific in the text that thought was as bad as the deed. "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). As such simply acting in a manner that would cause enough fear of violence/a beating in the minds of those he was driving from the temple is as bad as actually committing the act (very 1984).

So yes I have defended my point. Your defense is that a whip was used in a manner that it can't be used and that it OK to terrify people and throw stuff around because that's not really violent or wrong? Oh and that he would have been arrested had he hit anyone, but causing a mass panic and claiming to be the son of God would have been something they would have been totally fine with (despite the messiah claim being blasphemy and punishable by death).

Saying Jesus was imperfect (and calling it "dick move of some order") for withering a tree is just laughable to me.
Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?

I think Jesus acted in a manner that is quite a way from perfect here, I've already said that quite clearly.

Do you not think that one who is perfect should be able to explain a point without resorting to causing harm to anything?

What does that link have to do with this...

Everything, but if you can't be bothered to read it then I'm happy to pick a few.

I said "I’ll comment on this if you quote the verses you’re referring to."

Back up your comment with what the Bible actually says (4 verses should do it), instead of posting a link too 100 random verses.

I did. It seems that the volume of them was too much (which I might add is not my issue, please don't blame me for the content of your religious text).

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus is in full support of the OT laws still being used, and as such has no issue with the killing of Children, rape victims who don't cry out, slavery, killing homosexuals and all manner of small offenses being punished with death.

Matthew 8:32
Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below
Jesus has no issue with animal cruelty at all, killing an entire herd of pigs and as a result destroying the livelihood of those that farmed them (so much that they asked him to leave). Would a perfect person have not been able to drive out these demons without killing the entire herd? Oh wait demons don't exist, so he basically just killed a load of pigs.

Matthew 10:14-15
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Anyone who lives in a house or city doesn't accept Jesus and his religious view is going to suffer a worse fate that Sodom and Gomorrah! Two cities in which every inhabitant (regardless of guilt of anything) were killed apart from Lot's family (well apart from his wife who was killed for the evil of 'looking back. So Jesus preaches genocide on those houses and cities that will not follow his particular world view

That's three to get you started, the Bible has many more, so if they are not enough plenty more exist.

"Christian" doctrine does disagree with me, a lot.

Matthew 15:8 These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

1 John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

1 Timothy 1:7 They want to be teachers of the Law, yet they do not understand either what they are talking about or the things about which they speak so confidently.

Try again using your own words why you dismiss one of the central tenants of Christian doctrine and in doing so put yourself above roughly 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.

 

[RalliArt/////]

So he drove out hundreds of people (and given that it was Passover it may have been more), including the temple guards simply by waving his arms in the air and using harsh words?

Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Mark 11:15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves

Luke 19:45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling.

Where does it say "he drove out hundreds of people"?

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to drive out "the people buying and selling there" without striking them?

They knew what they were doing was wrong. You make it sound like they were all holding their ground ready to fight Jesus, so he had to whip them out.



So you've gone from... "Jesus beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people" to..

Why make a scourge if your not going to use it?

The use of violence and force is implicit in the text.

You also forget that even if violence in deed was not committed...,

Glad to see you've changed your tune.

It can't be cracked and certainly can't be used to herd animals without inflicting harm.

It would be possible to herd them without inflicting harm, just wave it around. Jesus could have whipped it off anything solid to create noise and frighten the animals out.

You also forget that even if violence in deed was not committed (and I would argue that overturning tables is a violent act), Jesus himself was quite specific in the text that thought was as bad as the deed.
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28).
As such simply acting in a manner that would cause enough fear of violence/a beating in the minds of those he was driving from the temple is as bad as actually committing the act (very 1984).

If I was thinking of stealing something but changed my mind, would God be angry with me for stealing it? No, he'd be glad I obeyed him.

Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about lustful thought, not all thoughts.
You are really trying hard to twist scripture to suit what you want to believe, just like you did with John 2:15.

Psalm 56:5 All day long they twist my words; all their schemes are for my ruin.

So yes I have defended my point. Your defense is that a whip was used in a manner that it can't be used and that it OK to terrify people and throw stuff around because that's not really violent or wrong?Oh and that he would have been arrested had he hit anyone, but causing a mass panic and claiming to be the son of God would have been something they would have been totally fine with (despite the messiah claim being blasphemy and punishable by death).

My defense is simple, Jesus never struck anyone, something you've perhaps come to realise now.

I think Jesus acted in a manner that is quite a way from perfect here, I've already said that quite clearly.
Do you not think that one who is perfect should be able to explain a point without resorting to causing harm to anything?

I'll answer your question if you stop ignoring mine, again..."Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?"
A simple yes or no will do.

I did. It seems that the volume of them was too much (which I might add is not my issue, please don't blame me for the content of your religious text).

That's better, should've just used the below verses like I asked.

Matthew 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus is in full support of the OT laws still being used, and as such has no issue with the killing of Children, rape victims who don't cry out, slavery, killing homosexuals and all manner of small offenses being punished with death.

If you bothered to read on Jesus talks about which laws he was to fulfill.

Matthew 8:32

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below Jesus has no issue with animal cruelty at all, killing an entire herd of pigs and as a result destroying the livelihood of those that farmed them (so much that they asked him to leave). Would a perfect person have not been able to drive out these demons without killing the entire herd?

Oh wait demons don't exist, so he basically just killed a load of pigs.

Well then its pointless to give an answer this.

Matthew 10:14-15

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Anyone who lives in a house or city doesn't accept Jesus and his religious view is going to suffer a worse fate that Sodom and Gomorrah! Two cities in which every inhabitant (regardless of guilt of anything) were killed apart from Lot's family (well apart from his wife who was killed for the evil of 'looking back. So Jesus preaches genocide on those houses and cities that will not follow his particular world view

This verse shows that at least some unrighteous people the disciples preach to will be present during Judgment Day. When these former citizens are resurrected during Judgment Day, Jesus says it will be even harder for them to accept Him than it will be for resurrected persons from Sodom and Gomorrah.

The people that died in Sodom and Gomorrha will be resurrected and will be judged "in the day of judgment".

John 5:28-29 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.

Try again using your own words why you dismiss one of the central tenants of Christian doctrine and in doing so put yourself above roughly 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.

It's contrary to the Bible.

 

[Scaff]

Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Mark 11:15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves

Luke 19:45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling.

Where does it say "he drove out hundreds of people"?

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to drive out "the people buying and selling there" without striking them?

They knew what they were doing was wrong. You make it sound like they were all holding their ground ready to fight Jesus, so he had to whip them out.



So you've gone from... "Jesus beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people" to..


Glad to see you've changed your tune.

Actually no I haven't.

you chose to focus on that small part of my post not me, my point is and remains that these are not the actions of one who is perfect.

It would be possible to herd them without inflicting harm, just wave it around. Jesus could have whipped it off anything solid to create noise and frighten the animals out.

You seem to have no idea how either a scourge was used or how animals function.

If I was thinking of stealing something but changed my mind, would God be angry with me for stealing it? No, he'd be glad I obeyed him.

Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about lustful thought, not all thoughts.
You are really trying hard to twist scripture to suit what you want to believe, just like you did with John 2:15.

Psalm 56:5 All day long they twist my words; all their schemes are for my ruin.

No it doesn't limit to adultery. It goes on to say that should any part of you cause offense (such as eyes for lust) it should be removed. Adultery may be the initial example, but its expanded on far beyond that (unless we have to dismember ourselves for lustful thoughts).

My defense is simple, Jesus never struck anyone, something you've perhaps come to realise now.

As its down to interpretation I disagree, however what you may have to re-read my posts to understand is that wasn't the point I was making, simply your focus.

I'll answer your question if you stop ignoring mine, again..."Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?"
A simple yes or no will do.

Sin is an abstract concept with no meaning at all. Now did he do something wrong here? Yes.

That's better, should've just used the below verses like I asked.

You don't get to demand how I post, please drop the attitude.

If you bothered to read on Jesus talks about which laws he was to fulfill.

Not one bit of what he says removes a single OT law....

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

....so the law still stands until the prophylactic is fulfilled. With Jesus claiming he will do so, its my contention that he was not perfect and as such didn't fulfill the prophecy. However even if he did, it still means that from the minute he said that, until the moment of his return to Dad/Himself he was still in full favour of every word of the OT law, with all its horror (something I would argue is far from perfect in itself).

Well then its pointless to give an answer this.

Well actually its not, but in either case it seems to result in the needless death of animals and the ruin of innocent peoples livelihood.

This verse shows that at least some unrighteous people the disciples preach to will be present during Judgment Day. When these former citizens are resurrected during Judgment Day, Jesus says it will be even harder for them to accept Him than it will be for resurrected persons from Sodom and Gomorrah.

The people that died in Sodom and Gomorrha will be resurrected and will be judged "in the day of judgment".

John 5:28-29 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.

These people have done nothing wrong at all? Why should they be consigned to a harsher judgement based on no wrong doing at all?

Unless immediate death and eternal damnation are OK with you.

It's contrary to the Bible.

Two thousand years of Christian theologians disagree with you, what makes you interpretation of the Bible right and the one they hold wrong?

You see that's the issue with a text that has its origins in pre Bronze Ages tribal religions and has been added to, translated, edited and generally changed to suit the needs of the (very human) authors over a period of thousands of years. It leaves it open to a wide range of interpretations, and to claim one to be the only true interpretation (as you seem to be doing) would need to be confirmed directly by the claimed chief editor (for want of a better term), God.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mark 11:15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves...Why would it be impossible for Jesus to drive out "the people buying and selling there" without striking them?

You've misquoted, that's possibly where your misunderstanding comes from.

And when he was entered into the temple, he began to cast out sellers and buyers in the temple; and he turned upside-down the boards of (the money-)changers, and the chairs of men that sold culvers; (and they came to Jerusalem. And after he went into the Temple, he began to throw out the sellers and the buyers in the Temple; and he turned upside-down the tables of the money-changers, and the chairs of those who sold doves and pigeons

The definitions of cast are as follows, the act of force is not only implicit in the text but definitively stated.