Posted: Feb 25, 2018 3:14 pm
by SafeAsMilk
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
That you speak of abandoning women and children as "going against the grain of society" as if it were some noble act tells everyone everything they need to know about your perspective, I think.

Then you better read it again, because that's exactly what it says. "Do it some other time when I'm not about to get special treatment" isn't a good argument any way you slice it.


:nono: That's not what it says, it says:
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them.


They didn't need that perfume to go out and do good for the poor. :picard:

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 :lol:


Well I don't know where you live where convincing people to abandon their families, physical assault and dismissing the poor are no big deal. Around here and pretty much everywhere I've lived, that would be considered extremely shitty behavior.


Around where I live JC doesn't have much of a reputation for "dismissing the poor". And he's generally thought of as being non violent. And pretty much a kind and loving sort of bloke. But, it's true that those who lost profits weren't too happy with how he cut into their profits that day and they seemed to think a death sentence was the appropriate punishment.


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"? :lol:


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. 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.





The fact that you see not leaving your family high and dry as "sticking to the script" is fucking heinous. Becoming separated from your family because of strong disagreements isn't the same as a guy demanding you abandon your family or else you don't get his special spirit sauce.


It's not like you'll necessarily be the one leaving your family if you decide not to stick to the religious script. Many a religious family can't handle someone questioning if a virgin birth actually happened. Some can't handle saying the earth is billions of years old. For some, evolution is - well forget about it. JC was just pointing out that if you want to break out of a family denial system, you better be prepared for the reality that doing so may also break up your family. That's just the way things work with humans on planet earth, that's not JC's fault - unless you believe he was the creator of all- and then I guess it is.

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. 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".