Posted: Feb 25, 2018 6:19 pm
by SafeAsMilk
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 :lol:

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.


His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.

Saying that they've claimed something ridiculous isn't the same as saying what they've claimed is correct. You can't claim someone isn't claiming what they clearly are just because it's ridiculous.



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.

You've claimed they're subject to interpretation, but you've utterly failed to show this to be so.

As I said, leaving a religious faith can separate you from your family but sometimes that's what's best for you to do.

And as I pointed out, that isn't at all relevant to the scripture in question. It's just you hand-waving.





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 .. :scratch: 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.

It is possible to show the case in terms of the available evidence. What you've done is wild guessing, whereas I've gone by what's actually been said -- I've accepted the text at face value when there's no evidence of metaphor or alternate meaning. That isn't literalism.