Board 8 > Conservative politics topic 2: The sacred TRUTH Trumps all lies

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kenri posted...

well jesus specifically disagreed with it for one thing which seems like something you'd care about as a christian

vlado cares more about the old testament, clearly. "eye for an eye" and all that.
---

Vlado posted...

Shows how much you've read the Bible. You read someone cherry picking something from the Bible on the internet, and you think you know everything. Typical for liberals.

38 You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

is there some extra context outside the verse itself that contradicts this

is the next verse "and then Jesus said 'lol jk slap 'em back real hard'"
---

Jesus was such a beta
---

Vlado posted...

Shows how much you've read the Bible. You read someone cherry picking something from the Bible on the internet, and you think you know everything. Typical for liberals.

I didn't say anything about the Bible, I said Jesus disagrees with your morals.
---

How about counter-counter-attacks? Are those ethical?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

is there some extra context outside the verse itself that contradicts this

is the next verse "and then Jesus said 'lol jk slap 'em back real hard'"

to be fair to vlado, jesus also said stuff like "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (matthew 10:34). doesn't exactly seem like a "turn the other cheek" mentality. you can definitely base an aggressive philosophy on jesus' teachings if you want to.

now, of course the next question would be "how do you know which of jesus' teachings were right and which ones were OBVIOUSLY wrong/not to be taken literally/whatever," but the last time i asked this question i had half the board shouting "LOL LASA YOU'RE JUST FIGHTING A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST CHRISTIANS" at me. not sure if i care to open that can of worms again.
---

well Jesus gets to sword people up because he's God, but he told the rest of us to be cool
---

R. T. France explains the verse, in context with the subsequent verse 35: "The sword Jesus brings is not here military conflict, but, as vv. 3536 show, a sharp social division which even severs the closest family ties. Jesus speaks here, as in the preceding and following verses, more of a division in mens personal response to him."

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

well Jesus gets to sword people up because he's God, but he told the rest of us to be cool

jesus is god? that's a pretty uncommon view. only christians who adhere to oneness pentecostalism believe that.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

R. T. France explains the verse, in context with the subsequent verse 35: "The sword Jesus brings is not here military conflict, but, as vv. 3536 show, a sharp social division which even severs the closest family ties. Jesus speaks here, as in the preceding and following verses, more of a division in mens personal response to him."

thanks for this exegesis by "r.t. france"
---

oh I dunno, I got all my bible learning from a Catholicism class
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

jesus is god? that's a pretty uncommon view. only christians who adhere to oneness pentecostalism believe that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

the trinity is the belief that god consists of god the father, jesus and the holy spirit. that's a different belief than the belief that god and jesus are literally the same being - that's the belief of oneness pentecostalism.

you don't have to lecture me on christianity, i've studied it at a university.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

the trinity is the belief that god consists of god the father, jesus and the holy spirit. that's a different belief than the belief that god and jesus are literally the same being - that's the belief of oneness pentecostalism.

you don't have to lecture me on christianity, i've studied it at a university.

The saying "Jesus is God" doesn't have to mean they're literally the same being. Saying "Jesus is God" is also correct as far as believing in the Trinity is concerned, because all three are God.
---

Vlado posted...

something contentless and ad hominem without refuting the argument at all.

---

if god consists of god and Jesus and the third thing who cares then to say Jesus is god is right, I think.
Like my body consists of my arm and other shit, and I would say my arm is me.

but also I don't really care, the point is I don't think that line about being a sword contradicts him saying to people that they should turn the other cheek because there are different rules for humans than there are for gods or jesuses
---

There's no context in the verses before or after it that suggest it literally means violence, anyway
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I would say my arm is me.

really? would you say "i am my arm"?

but also I don't really care, the point is I don't think that line about being a sword contradicts him saying to people that they should turn the other cheek because there are different rules for humans than there are for gods or jesuses

again, that's exegesis. jesus doesn't actually say anything like that.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

really? would you say "i am my arm"?

If somebody pokes you in the arm and you want them to stop, do you not say "Don't poke me?"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

the trinity is the belief that god consists of god the father, jesus and the holy spirit. that's a different belief than the belief that god and jesus are literally the same being - that's the belief of oneness pentecostalism.

you don't have to lecture me on christianity, i've studied it at a university.

The saying "Jesus is God" doesn't have to mean they're literally the same being. Saying "Jesus is God" is also correct as far as believing in the Trinity is concerned, because all three are God.

The three are distinct from each other but they are all God.



- signed, growing up in catholic school
---

if I saw my arm in a picture I would identify it as me or as my arm, both work. My arm is a thing, but it's also just a part of me. I am my arm, my arm is I.

which part of what I said does Jesus not say? That he doesn't have to do the stuff he tells humans to do?
---

Christianity really sounds like competing retcons trying to make sense of a book written by different people

<_<
---

Jesus's dad is god and/or he is god, so obviously he doesn't have to follow God's rules because god will just let it slide. It just makes sense.
God is a shitty cop, and Jesus is God's son who just got caught with weed. Jesus isn't going to jail.

it's possible I've completely lost track of what we're even talking about. Uh, Vlado is a dingus?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

which part of what I said does Jesus not say? That he doesn't have to do the stuff he tells humans to do?

he doesn't say "turn the other cheek but obviously this doesn't apply to me i can beat the shit out of people because i'm jesus lol."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

which part of what I said does Jesus not say? That he doesn't have to do the stuff he tells humans to do?

he doesn't say "turn the other cheek but obviously this doesn't apply to me i can beat the shit out of people because i'm jesus lol."

oh totally, ok

I just realized that Jesus does his own cheek turning anyway. If he was like Vlado, Jesus would have gone around crucifying people after he came back from the dead zone, but he didn't.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Jesus's dad is god and/or he is god, so obviously he doesn't have to follow God's rules because god will just let it slide. It just makes sense.
God is a shitty cop, and Jesus is God's son who just got caught with weed. Jesus isn't going to jail.

don't disagree with this, but at the same time christians say stuff like "heaven is perfection and therefore the only way to go to heaven is to accept jesus as your savior because he's perfect." at least that's what tombolo told me in like '04 (i'm grossly oversimplifying the way he said it). so if you look at it THAT way it doesn't make much sense at all; how can jesus be perfect if he's constantly breaking god's rules and only gets away with it because god doesn't give a shit?

you can make it make sense if you want to but whether or not it makes sense kinda depends on what kind of mental gymnasitcs you want to let loose on christianity/the bible.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

which part of what I said does Jesus not say? That he doesn't have to do the stuff he tells humans to do?

he doesn't say "turn the other cheek but obviously this doesn't apply to me i can beat the shit out of people because i'm jesus lol."

Can you point to where he actually says "Beat the shit out of people?"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

which part of what I said does Jesus not say? That he doesn't have to do the stuff he tells humans to do?

he doesn't say "turn the other cheek but obviously this doesn't apply to me i can beat the shit out of people because i'm jesus lol."

Can you point to where he actually says "Beat the shit out of people?"

Well he trashes a bunch of moneylender stalls and curses a fig tree for not having figs when it wasn't fig season.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Can you point to where he actually says "Beat the shit out of people?"

he doesn't, but he does say "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (that's just one example, btw - at several other points in the bible he also says aggressive stuff.)

i guess i shouldn't take any of that literally because r.t. france says so, though.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Can you point to where he actually says "Beat the shit out of people?"

he doesn't, but he does say "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (that's just one example, btw - at several other points in the bible he also says aggressive stuff.)

i guess i shouldn't take any of that literally because r.t. france says so, though.

You shouldn't take it literally because none of the other verses actually have him saying "Yeah, go be violent." Context sorta matters. And the context supports what France interpreted.
---

He also murders a bunch of kids with bears.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

You shouldn't take it literally because none of the other verses actually have him saying "Yeah, go be violent." Context sorta matters. And the context supports what France interpreted.

does france also take into account that the bible is several millennia old, has been retranslated tons of times, and has had stuff removed from it as well as added to it? furthermore, why should we assume that the evangelists are correct in their attributing of words to jesus?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

You shouldn't take it literally because none of the other verses actually have him saying "Yeah, go be violent." Context sorta matters. And the context supports what France interpreted.

does france also take into account that the bible is several millennia old, has been retranslated tons of times, and has had stuff removed from it as well as added to it??

How about you sell me on why I should take your interpretation over his when, earlier in Matthew 10, he's literally telling the disciples that they're going to be scorned, attacked, and so on, and they should just accept it and move on and continue preaching. Like, why would it go from that to "btw VIOLENCE"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

How about you sell me on why I should take your interpretation over his

i don't have an interpretation.

i'm saying we CAN'T KNOW what should be taken literally and figuratively when it comes to jesus' words.

but last time i tried to tell you this you accused me of "having a personal vendetta against christians," so...
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

How about you sell me on why I should take your interpretation over his

i don't have an interpretation.

i'm saying we CAN'T KNOW what should be taken literally and figuratively when it comes to jesus' words.

but last time i tried to tell you this you accused me of "having a personal vendetta against christians," so...

In some cases we can't, right.

But when there's context from quotes surrounding it, we can have a pretty damn good guess.

Like, I'm not accusing you of having a vendetta because you're saying we can't know for sure.

I'm accusing you of having a vendetta because no matter what logic somebody presents to you, you sit there with your fingers in your ears and go "No, no, no, it's nonsensical, you're nonsensical, lalala!"

That and you do random shit like trying to start stuff with Moogle over "Jesus is God"
---

Also, you clearly do have an interpretation because you tried to use it as evidence of something twice, so...

EDIT: Basically, what I'm saying is that you seem to go out of your way an awful lot to tell people "You can't say that because we don't know for sure!" and/or "Having X interpretation but not Y interpretation is nonsensical!" to the point where you're clearly trying to discredit what they believe for who knows what reason
---

StealThisSheen posted...

But when there's context from quotes surrounding it, we can have a pretty damn good guess.

yeah, this is where i'll disagree. we know very little about the historical jesus and if you try to use the gospels as a primary source to back up claims about him, you'll get laughed out of any serious history class. it's worth pointing out that jesus had been long dead when the earliest of the gospels (mark) was written, with all of these super detailed accounts of what jesus supposedly said.

Also, you clearly do have an interpretation because you tried to use it as evidence of something twice, so...

i don't know what it is i used it as evidence for other than "this is something that's in the bible." that's not an interpretation, that's a fact.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yeah, this is where i'll disagree. we know very little about the historical jesus and if you try to use the gospels as a primary source to back up claims about him, you'll get laughed out of any serious history class. it's worth pointing out that jesus had been long dead when the earliest of the gospels (mark) was written, with all of these super detailed accounts of what jesus supposedly said.

So you think people can't draw interpretations based on context

So why does that mean you can just cherry pick a line and go "Look, this supports my argument?"

You're literally going "lmao you used quotes from Matthew 10" while simultaneously going "Look at this quote from Matthew 10."
---

okay i think this whole violet jesus thread has gone on a bit far now
---

Its time for the blue Jesus thread.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

You're literally going "lmao you used quotes from Matthew 10" while simultaneously going "Look at this quote from Matthew 10."

again, i'm saying "look at this quote form matthew 10" to argue that you CAN be a christian while having an aggressive philosophy, especially since there's other quotes in the bible to support this as well. so yes, when it comes to this i'll (mildly) defend vlado. i think a more aggressive interpretation is just as valid as a "turn the other cheek" intepretation, and i think it's stupid and pretentious to say "no vlado you're wrong, r.t. france said so" as if the exegesis by this one dude is the be-all and end-all.

what i'm NOT saying, however, is "the historical jesus absolutely said this because it appears in matthew 10." that would be "lmao."
---

also SEP, when it comes to the "turn the other cheek" verse, how do you know that THAT should be taken literally? you could easily argue something like "no, jesus obviously didn't mean that you should do nothing when a guy is beating the shit out of you, he just means that generally speaking it's better to take a more pacifist stance." hell, i'm sure i've seen christians argue exactly that. you seem awfully certain on what should be taken literally and figuratively when i don't think there's reason for that much certainty.
---

And I'm saying that "i think a more aggressive interpretation is just as valid as a "turn the other cheek" intepretation," is stupid because of the context, which you shouldn't ignore if you're going to use any quote for any argument, period.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

also SEP, when it comes to the "turn the other cheek" verse, how do you know that THAT should be taken literally? you could easily argue something like "no, jesus obviously didn't mean that you should do nothing when a guy is beating the shit out of you, he just means that generally speaking it's better to take a more pacifist stance." hell, i'm sure i've seen christians argue exactly that. you seem awfully certain on what should be taken literally and figuratively when i don't think there's reason for that much certainty.

I'm not the one going around telling people what they can and can't believe. You are. People state why they believe something, give evidence, and you attempt to go "No, you can't take that literally," or "No, that's nonsense."

How about just letting people air out what they believe instead of feeling like you have to somehow prove them wrong. Spoilers: You're not suddenly going to make somebody go "Oh man, I've been wrong all this time!"
---

I think we need to ask Trump to settle all this

No one is more pious than him
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not the one going around telling people what they can and can't believe. You are.

cite the post where i say that people can't believe something.
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWimxLaXUAAsht_?format=jpg&name=small

Man these people really think the Deep State are IDIOTS
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not the one going around telling people what they can and can't believe. You are.

cite the post where i say that people can't believe something.

Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism. You tried to say "Jesus is God" couldn't be said of the Trinity.

I'm gonna lay my argument out, here, because we're not getting anywhere.

If you believe the whole thing is hogwash, then by all means, believe it's hogwash. I won't stop you, I won't argue.

However, if you're going to use a quote from the Bible to try to support an argument, then you are opening your argument to be criticized based on the context surrounding the quote. The context surrounding the sword quote highly suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally, and since you were the one to use the quote as part of your argument in the first place, trying to say "Well, the context shouldn't be considered because X and Y" is unfair. You opened the can of worms.

Likewise, since somebody used the "Turn the other cheek" quote, you have the right to present context that suggests it shouldn't be taken literally, if you believe the context does so.

I'm not arguing that you can't believe Jesus overall was more aggressive. What I'm saying is that if you're going to use that quote as evidence, then I'm going to disagree with your argument based on the context since you opened the book.

What you tend to do is tell people that believing certain quotes or passages is "non-sensical" based on the fact that there's no 100% definite way to know for sure what is and isn't to be taken literally, and then when they argue their logic, whether it's with context, other passages, etc., you usually go "Nope, that's nonsense. You don't know that." That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWimxLaXUAAsht_?format=jpg&name=small

Man these people really think the Deep State are IDIOTS

"The masterminds of the Deep State are controlling this country, but they can't figure out Youtube. IT ALL MAKES SENSE"
---