Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

The "Adam is always pictured as beardless" statement's a bit weird. He knows they're not photographs, right?

 

[TexRex]

The "Adam is always pictured as beardless" statement's a bit weird. He knows they're not photographs, right?

I was thinking the exact same thing about all of those. Of course I can't not picture Charlton Heston when I think of Moses.

Me? I wear a beard and I don't. I flip back and forth freely and was rocking a goatee last month. But it has to be groomed and it has to be one or the other; with the long hair, a mustache alone makes me look like I belong on the cover of Poco's Crazy Eyes.

 

[RalliArt/////]

And the (in)famous passage in Luke 19:

…26 He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay themin front of me.’ 28 After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem...

The whole parable of the ten minas is quite interesting in a couple other points... And not for being positive.

 

[zzz_pt]

Are you going to comment on the video or just dump it here and expect I take it seriously?

Edit: Because what he says doesn't change anything. He's addressing the non-argument "Christians are commanded to kill", which I didn't make, nor anyone in this thread AFAIK. It's a red herring.

But if you want, I can explain why the verse 27 is infamous, in the context of the parable. There's no need to take the verse out of context to show how weak and immoral it is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What was your comment, or are we expected to just sit and watch a ten minute video?

 

[UKMikey]

The "Adam is always pictured as beardless" statement's a bit weird. He knows they're not photographs, right?

He also says he has no idea if the actual people looked like that, so I'm guessing... yes. It is an odd comment to make though. I guess that, although Quakers don't have to be Christians, it doesn't prevent some of them being influenced by biblical teaching as opposed to scientific accuracy.

 

[Denur]

I found the Parable of the Ten Minas an interesting one, because of what it lacks: a conclusion. Usually a parable teaches us a lesson, for good or for bad. Aesop even added the moral of the story to his fables. For example in the Cock and the Fox: Beware sudden offers of friendship.

But there appears to be nothing to learn from the Ten Minas. The noble man returns as king from Jerusalem, rewards those servants who made him money. The parable concludes with the new king saying that those who have, will be given even more and those who have nothing will be stripped of even more. And of course, those who do not recognize him as king, must be killed.

Nothing else happens to this noble man, now king, in the remainder of the verse. He is not struck by lightning, or an illness or anything else that could be seen as a punishment for his actions.

Why did Luke bring up this story about a man who became king in Jerusalem, without condemning him, at the very point that Jesus did the same? As far as I know, everything written in the Bible is done for a reason, not just for page filling. I can only conclude, that it is a message that Jesus will do the same as the noble man to those who serve Him well (reward them) and have those murdered who do not recognize Him as their new King.

Also interesting, in the next section (Luke 19:30) Jesus orders his disciples to steal a colt, simply because He needs it!

https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/19.htm

Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here

 

[RalliArt/////]

Are you going to comment on the video or just dump it here and expect I take it seriously?

Well you watched at least some of it.

Edit: Because what he says doesn't change anything. He's addressing the non-argument "Christians are commanded to kill", which I didn't make, nor anyone in this thread AFAIK. It's a red herring.

Never said you did.

But if you want, I can explain why the verse 27 is infamous, in the context of the parable.

Go ahead..

What was your comment, or are we expected to just sit and watch a ten minute video?

You can stand if you want.

.....I can only conclude, that it is a message that Jesus will do the same as the noble man to those who serve Him well (reward them) and have those murdered who do not recognize Him as their new King.

Yes, pretty much.

Also interesting, in the next section (Luke 19:30) Jesus orders his disciples to steal a colt, simply because He needs it!

https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/19.htm

It was a voluntary action of the owners.
Matthew 21:3 - If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will immediately let you take them.”

 

[Northstar]

It was a voluntary action of the owners.
Matthew 21:3 - If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will immediately let you take them.”

So their options were to either "volunteer" the colt or suffer eternal damnation?

There's also the small fact that what that says isn't really volunteering. Volunteering would be going to the owner first and asking for it, not saying "it's for god" once caught in the act.

 

[Denur]

It was a voluntary action of the owners.
Matthew 21:3 - If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will immediately let you take them.”

If the owner had not seen that they were taking their animal(s), they would still have stolen it (them). If only they had asked first, like any decent person would; But a prophesy needed to be fulfilled, so no chances taken.
John's account of the event (12:14) "Then Jesus found a young donkey...", I now can't help but read as "Then Jesus 'found' a young donkey...".

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was a voluntary action of the owners.

As others have already said it isn't voluntary if you can only volunteer through the chance act of catching your ass and colt being removed. It's interesting that this is a much-edited story, in earlier versions jeebus rides the colt and the ass at the same time, presumably symbolic of simultaneous kingship and serfdom. That didn't make sense even by the mad medieval standards of symbology and so we have the stories of the crowds applauding the ass of jeebus.

 

[Dotini]

jeebus rides the colt and the ass at the same time.

This is bilocation. The Vatican uses this as a criteria of sainthood.

 

[UKMikey]

As others have already said it isn't voluntary if you can only volunteer through the chance act of catching your ass and colt being removed. It's interesting that this is a much-edited story, in earlier versions jeebus rides the colt and the ass at the same time, presumably symbolic of simultaneous kingship and serfdom. That didn't make sense even by the mad medieval standards of symbology and so we have the stories of the crowds applauding the ass of jeebus.

So coveting thy neighbour's ass is strictly verboten but coveting his colt is okay?

 

[Dotini]

So coveting thy neighbour's ass is strictly verboten but coveting his colt is okay?

No, this has to do with the double slit paradox - so the wrong part of the anatomy.

 

[HenrySwanson]

But if you want, I can explain why the verse 27 is infamous, in the context of the parable. There's no need to take the verse out of context to show how weak and immoral it is.

I want to hear please!

 

[zzz_pt]

Go ahead..

I want to hear please!

1) It's not part of some earlier manuscripts. Well, the whole new testament is a messy patchwork.

2) It's a commandment to kill. Jesus/God doesn't do the dirty work himself.

3) It's a commandment to kill people who didn't bow down to Jesus before his second comming. Also known as unbelievers or people from other faiths. It's the "nice" eschatological part of the parable. Do as I say, or else...

4) It comes after a supposed moralizing story (parable) where "servants", also known as slaves in earlier, non-modernized texts, are the main characters. Just another lost opportunity for Jesus to put an end to slavery but I guess his "work" and second comming were more important.

Dunno if it's enough... I think I could find some more points if I'd read it a could more times.

 

[RalliArt/////]

If the owner had not seen that they were taking their animal(s), they would still have stolen it (them). If only they had asked first, like any decent person would; But a prophesy needed to be fulfilled, so no chances taken.
John's account of the event (12:14) "Then Jesus found a young donkey...", I now can't help but read as "Then Jesus 'found' a young donkey...".

How do you know this didn't happen?
Is it not possible that it was prearranged?
How did Jesus know there was a donkey and a foal tied together at that place and time?
How did Jesus know if his disciples spoke the words.. "The Lord needs them" there would be no issues?
If they had "stolen" the animals why did the owner allow it?
Mark 11.6 - "And they spoke to them as Jesus had commanded, and they allowed them."

1) It's not part of some earlier manuscripts. Well, the whole new testament is a messy patchwork.

Such a vague statement.

2) It's a commandment to kill. Jesus/God doesn't do the dirty work himself.

3) It's a commandment to kill people who didn't bow down to Jesus before his second comming. Also known as unbelievers or people from other faiths. It's the "nice" eschatological part of the parable. Do as I say, or else...

The "Do as I say" is for our benefit not God's. There's no middle ground here, your either for God or against Him, your choice.

4) It comes after a supposed moralizing story (parable) where "servants", also known as slaves in earlier, non-modernized texts, are the main characters. Just another lost opportunity for Jesus to put an end to slavery but I guess his "work" and second comming were more important.

Nonsense, Its got nothing to do with slavery.

Devoted followers of Jesus are referred to as slaves too...

Titus 1:1 This letter is from Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 7:22 When the Lord chooses slaves, they become his free people. And when he chooses free people, they become slaves of Christ.
Acts 4:29 And now, Lord, consider their threats, and grant that Your slaves may speak Your message with complete boldness,
Acts 2:18 In those days I will even pour out my Spirit on my slaves, men and women alike, and they will prophesy.
Jude 1:1 This letter is from Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James. I am writing to all who have been called by God the Father
Philippians 1:1 From Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.

 

[TexRex]

How do you know this didn't happen?

None of it happened...it's Harry Potter and the Burning Bush.

Is it not possible that it was prearranged?

Yes, it's not possible. When something has been agreed upon in advance, there's no questioning motives during the act. And still, none of it happened.

 

[Imari]

There's no middle ground here, your either for God or against Him, your choice.

It's a good job most modern humans are pretty adept at identifying a false dichotomy.

Not all, obviously.

 

[Denur]

How do you know this didn't happen?

His disciples didn't ask first, because Jesus said: "If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’". Jesus, all knowing and all, wouldn't have bothered with that remark, if his disciples were going to ask first.

Is it not possible that it was prearranged?

No, see above.

How did Jesus know there was a donkey and a foal tied together at that place and time?

Again, Jesus knows all. Or, if you don't believe that He knows all, He might have sent scouts ahead to look for a donkey and foal. In which case the scouts might have spoken with the owner and asked if Jesus could have the animals. And the owner could have answered; "Sure, I don't use the foal anyway".

How did Jesus know if his disciples spoke the words.. "The Lord needs them" there would be no issues?

Human knowledge. The village people knew of His coming and either revered and/or feared Him.

If they had "stolen" the animals why did the owner allow it?

Again, because of the phrase "If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’". If only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if". What if His disciples had taken the animals during the night, without witnesses, without anyone nearby to ask the question?

Mark 11.6 - "And they spoke to them as Jesus had commanded, and they allowed them."

Again, they should have asked first.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.boredpanda.com/religious-people-converting-rejection-brainwashing-technique

[EDIT] I found the actual post on Quora for those who'd prefer to see it in a more compact form.

Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them? I only do it because I care about them deeply and don’t want them to end up in hell. I feel like some people avoid me because of this. Is there any way to get through to them?

Doug Robertson, studied at University of Maine:

The entire process is not what you think it is.

It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn’t about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can’t leave yours.

If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn’t already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.

On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.

The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the “others”. These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the “Tribe”.

If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.

These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.

Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn’t safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.

This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the “Tribe” because they know that “others” reject them.

Mix in some ritualized chanting, possibly a bit of monotonous repetition of instructions, add a dash of fear of judgment by an unseen, but all-powerful entity who loves you if you do as you are told and you get a pretty powerful mix.

Sorry, I have absolutely no wish to participate in someones brainwashing ritual.

 

[TexRex]

https://www.boredpanda.com/religious-people-converting-rejection-brainwashing-technique

View attachment 836857 View attachment 836859
View attachment 836858

I like Doug.

I still long to be immodest enough to answer the door in nothing but socks [on my feet] and rubber scrubbing gloves [on my hands].

 

[RalliArt/////]

How did Jesus know there was a donkey and a foal tied together at that place and time?

Again, Jesus knows all. Or, if you don't believe that He knows all, He might have sent scouts ahead to look for a donkey and foal. In which case the scouts might have spoken with the owner and asked if Jesus could have the animals. And the owner could have answered; "Sure, I don't use the foal anyway".

I agree, and the scouts could've told Jesus the arrangement and Jesus could've sent his disciples to collect them when the time was right.
There's many different ways it could've happened, we're simply not told all of the details.

Now you say it wasn’t prearranged because Jesus said...

"If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’"

Jesus, all knowing and all, wouldn't have bothered with that remark, if his disciples were going to ask first.

If only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if"

If Jesus didn't know that his disciples would be questioned, then saying "if" is obviously the correct thing to say, and also suggests he wasn’t "all knowing" as you said.

You say.."if only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if".. But your argument is based on your assumption that Jesus knew, despite what the verse says.
So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

 

[Imari]

So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

Isn't that what "omniscient" means?

 

[Dotini]

I agree, and the scouts could've told Jesus the arrangement and Jesus could've sent his disciples to collect them when the time was right.
There's many different ways it could've happened, we're simply not told all of the details.

Now you say it wasn’t prearranged because Jesus said...

"If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’"



If Jesus didn't know that his disciples would be questioned, then saying "if" is obviously the correct thing to say, and also suggests he wasn’t "all knowing" as you said.

You say.."if only He had used the word "when" in stead of "if".. But your argument is based on your assumption that Jesus knew, despite what the verse says.
So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

IMHO, Jesus wasn't God, but was a human imbued with a much higher degree of God's consciousness than most humans. My definition of God is an infinite, intelligent consciousness.

 

[RalliArt/////]

Isn't that what "omniscient" means?

How did I know someone would say that?

IMHO, Jesus wasn't God,

I agree.

but was a human imbued with a much higher degree of God's consciousness than most all humans.

 

[TexRex]

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?

 

[UKMikey]

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?

Theologians seem to hate this one. Perhaps because they can't answer it without introducing logical absurdities like "Omnipotence doesn't mean you can do everything".

 

[TexRex]

"Omnipotence doesn't mean you can do everything"

Mostlipotence.



Edit: That sounds like a cholesterol lowering drug.

 

[Denur]

So is Jesus "all knowing" all the time and unable to choose what he wants to know?

IMHO, Jesus wasn't God

I agree.

If only Christians would agree on something as fundamental as the Holy Trinity... *sigh*

But alas, they can't even agree on how to translate some verses on this issue: John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

JW

No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god+ who is at the Father’s side*+ is the one who has explained Him