laklak wrote:No point in being a Christ if you can't do the water into wine shtick, or at least walk on it.
Don't know about the walk on it part.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
laklak wrote:No point in being a Christ if you can't do the water into wine shtick, or at least walk on it.
John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
John Platko wrote:
Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.
John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:
Save that Picard for yourself. Need has nothing to do with it. Apparently they can't whenever they want, because Jesus wants his precious perfume right now, dammit! And fuck those poor people when Jesus wants his perfume
Hey, it's not my fault if you and others don't actually read the book and ascribe a false reputation to him. Here, for instance, you're making the people who were peacefully sitting and selling their wares out to be villainous money grubbers in an attempt to justify Jesus' violence. Truly, there isn't a position so self-serving that a Jesus apologist won't adapt it. If some guy in your neighborhood was going around physically attacking people working in stores, it would be justice if he were arrested for it. Or perhaps you'd say he's just "not following the narrative"?
Sure, I want him arrested but I would think the death penalty a bit harsh.
Could not be any less relevant to the conversation if you tried, aside from the fact that he wasn't crucified just for attacking the merchants.
And everybody can have a bad day, you seem to expect Jesus to be perfect.
I have no expectations at all of Jesus, his followers claim he is perfect.
His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.
You asked what bad things he did, I listed them. You attempted to defend them, and failed. Just so we know where the conversation is.
Well it's pretty hard to defend self appointing yourself to be in charge of the temple and then causing a stampede. The other stuff is subject to interpretation.
As I said, leaving a religious faith can separate you from your family but sometimes that's what's best for you to do.
That's completely pulled out of your ass for all the relevance it has to that scripture. It doesn't say anything about conflicts within their families, it just demands they abandon their families and follow him if they want his special spirit sauce. Your apologetics are farcical.
Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family. And obviously the Bible doesn't make much sense if you read it literally.
It isn't obvious at all that isn't what he meant, because it's what he's written as having said. Just because something in the Bible contradicts itself or doesn't make much sense doesn't mean you aren't reading it right.
Well .. I guess I'm just going to have to concede that point to you because you're right about that.
You'd have to show that to be the case, not just hand-wave and assume it's meaningful if you twist and mangle it enough with "interpretation".
It's impossible to "show that to be the case." We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
John Platko wrote:
His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.
GrahamH wrote:John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:John Platko wrote:
Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.
Not obvious.
laklak wrote:Walking on it would be quite useful when we're on the boat. I could just carry the dog over to an island for a shit instead of messing about with the dinghy.
John Platko wrote:GrahamH wrote:John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:John Platko wrote:
Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.
Not obvious.
Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.
Which reminds me of a parable.
One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.
SafeAsMilk wrote:John Platko wrote:GrahamH wrote:John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:John Platko wrote:
Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.
Not obvious.
Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.
Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right?
Which reminds me of a parable.
One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.
Fortunately, Jesus being an asshole is right there in black and white in the Bible, so no need for a "parable" about Christian tradition.
Which reminds me of a parable.
One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.
Fortunately, Jesus being an asshole is right there in black and white in the Bible, so no need for a "parable" about Christian tradition.
I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt. Perhaps he was simply misquoted.
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.
John Platko wrote:
Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.
John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.
John Platko wrote:
I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt.
John Platko wrote:
I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC. And I don't recall the nuns saying anything about us having to abandon our families to be
Christian - . But I could imagine Koresh, Jones, and perhaps others misunderstanding such things.
Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.
"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/17806347 ... ll-believe
More rash assumptions about what was in the mind of someone two millennia ago from scant stories recalled by his adoring followers?
This guy doesn't think Koresh was "a complete asshole":Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.
"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/17806347 ... ll-believe
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest