On religion vs. faith and the political Jesus

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".

But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"? Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?

He appealed to the Bible for what he wants to prove and ignores the rest that contradicts him.

How does someone from the 21st century know what Jesus wanted when he doesn't know and he is revising what Jesus said?

By "he" I guess you mean the author. Of course he taps what's in the bible as one source, and lots of others as other sources. If one source contradicts the other, well that's gotta be resolved, doesn't it? Besides, you would't have to leave the bible to find contradictions; there's plenty right there.

Clearly if you're trying to paint a picture of who Jesus was and what he was about, you need more than the bible to go on. For instance... what the hell was he doing before the age of thirty? Was there nothing of interest in thirty years for a guy that was supposed to be God? Inquiring minds want to know.

There might be a reason for that...

Just a quick question, since you are an expert and all, what do actual scholars think about Aslan's work?

If he is outside the consensus, which he is, and scholars dismiss him as a crank, there might be a reason for that. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him just proves you are the one with the problem.

 

[Pogo]

He appealed to the Bible for what he wants to prove and ignores the rest that contradicts him.

How does someone from the 21st century know what Jesus wanted when he doesn't know and he is revising what Jesus said?

By "he" I guess you mean the author. Of course he taps what's in the bible as one source, and lots of others as other sources. If one source contradicts the other, well that's gotta be resolved, doesn't it? Besides, you would't have to leave the bible to find contradictions; there's plenty right there.

Clearly if you're trying to paint a picture of who Jesus was and what he was about, you need more than the bible to go on. For instance... what the hell was he doing before the age of thirty? Was there nothing of interest in thirty years for a guy that was supposed to be God? Inquiring minds want to know.

There might be a reason for that...

Just a quick question, since you are an expert and all, what do actual scholars think about Aslan's work?

If he is outside the consensus, which he is, and scholars dismiss him as a crank, there might be a reason for that. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him just proves you are the one with the problem.

Umm... huh?

"Wrong" about what? I didn't venture an opinion about him; I just put up the interview and said it's thought provoking.

You seem to have a fixation with trying to shut people up. Do you work for the Vatican?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By "he" I guess you mean the author. Of course he taps what's in the bible as one source, and lots of others as other sources. If one source contradicts the other, well that's gotta be resolved, doesn't it? Besides, you would't have to leave the bible to find contradictions; there's plenty right there.

Clearly if you're trying to paint a picture of who Jesus was and what he was about, you need more than the bible to go on. For instance... what the hell was he doing before the age of thirty? Was there nothing of interest in thirty years for a guy that was supposed to be God? Inquiring minds want to know.

There might be a reason for that...

Just a quick question, since you are an expert and all, what do actual scholars think about Aslan's work?

If he is outside the consensus, which he is, and scholars dismiss him as a crank, there might be a reason for that. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him just proves you are the one with the problem.

Umm... huh?

"Wrong" about what? I didn't venture an opinion about him; I just put up the interview and said it's thought provoking.

You seem to have a fixation with trying to shut people up. Do you work for the Vatican?

You defended accused me of being stupid because I refused to listen to his claptrap, but you don't have an opinion of him?

How typical.

 

[Pogo]

Just a quick question, since you are an expert and all, what do actual scholars think about Aslan's work?

If he is outside the consensus, which he is, and scholars dismiss him as a crank, there might be a reason for that. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him just proves you are the one with the problem.

Umm... huh?

"Wrong" about what? I didn't venture an opinion about him; I just put up the interview and said it's thought provoking.

You seem to have a fixation with trying to shut people up. Do you work for the Vatican?

You defended accused me of being stupid because I refused to listen to his claptrap, but you don't have an opinion of him?

How typical.

I "defended accused you of being stupid"? Where did I defended accused that?
How typical indeed. Not the first time you made stuff up that doesn't exist.

No, I don't need your opinion, my opinion or the man on the freaking moon's opinion, your contrarianist desperate attempts to hijack yet another thread notwithstanding. Poisoning the Well is for losers who have no ideas. The idea of this thread is to present ideas for thought, not prevent them.

I know it chaps your ass to imagine that such a discussion might take place beyond your control. That's too god damn bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm... huh?

"Wrong" about what? I didn't venture an opinion about him; I just put up the interview and said it's thought provoking.

You seem to have a fixation with trying to shut people up. Do you work for the Vatican?

You defended accused me of being stupid because I refused to listen to his claptrap, but you don't have an opinion of him?

How typical.

I "defended accused you of being stupid"? Where did I defended accused that?
How typical indeed. Not the first time you made stuff up that doesn't exist.

No, I don't need your opinion, my opinion or the man on the freaking moon's opinion, your contrarianist desperate attempts to hijack yet another thread notwithstanding. Poisoning the Well is for losers who have no ideas. The idea of this thread is to present ideas for thought, not prevent them.

I know it chaps your ass to imagine that such a discussion might take place beyond your control. That's too god damn bad.

The well was poisoned when I got here, all I did was warn everyone. You, however, prefer to slurp the poison.

 

[Pogo]

And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...

Discussion is now "poison". I'm gonna save that one. That's pure gold.

Next...

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course there was. It was an expression for the Jewish nation. Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people. So if you're advocating that, then by definition you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide. And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally did crucify him: as an enemy of the state. No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing. The Septuagint put that to rest. Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is. And that means looking at real history.

When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people ... why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces - as an enemy of the state.

Pogo: I don't think Mao was driving out the Romans. Not sure what your analogy is here.

I'm not sure why the analogy of "or anyone" would not fit all the people through history who rebelled as JC against tyrannical governance would be so hard to decipher ?

or that through History their followers likewise is one regard or another deified their leaders, particularly those who gave their lives for their cause. - the "Red Book" if Bibliciesed would be a good example.

George Washington is another ...

.

 

[Pogo]

Of course there was. It was an expression for the Jewish nation. Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people. So if you're advocating that, then by definition you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide. And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally did crucify him: as an enemy of the state. No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing. The Septuagint put that to rest. Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is. And that means looking at real history.

Pogo: I don't think Mao was driving out the Romans. Not sure what your analogy is here.

I'm not sure why the analogy of "or anyone" would not fit all the people through history who rebelled as JC against tyrannical governance would be so hard to decipher ?

or that through History their followers likewise is one regard or another deified their leaders, particularly those who gave their lives for their cause. - the "Red Book" if Bibliciesed would be a good example.

George Washington is another ...

.

But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

You've mixed excerpts from two unrelated posts here...

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course there was. It was an expression for the Jewish nation. Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people. So if you're advocating that, then by definition you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide. And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally did crucify him: as an enemy of the state. No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing. The Septuagint put that to rest. Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is. And that means looking at real history.

I'm not sure why the analogy of "or anyone" would not fit all the people through history who rebelled as JC against tyrannical governance would be so hard to decipher ?

or that through History their followers likewise is one regard or another deified their leaders, particularly those who gave their lives for their cause. - the "Red Book" if Bibliciesed would be a good example.

George Washington is another ...

.

But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

You've mixed excerpts from two unrelated posts here...

Pogo: ... although the interviewer herself is prolly the worst interviewer ever

ok, i listened to the interview - Fox and QW have a remarkable commonality ...

Pogo: But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

oh, maybe if you remove 1800 + years of advancement in civilization and put those two back to year 0 wait 150 years and write a book of their accomplishment you could quite easily have the same outcome as given to JC ...

which is to say I agree with Reza Azlan in as much as what was decipherable from the interview.

and does make a great deal of sense - as what happened was "mixed excerpts from two unrelated" (events) rebellion and religion was the ensuing outcome known as the Biblical interpritation.


* as previously stated however i am not excluding the possibility Divine intervention did not in some way play a role in all the events above.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...

Discussion is now "poison". I'm gonna save that one. That's pure gold.

Next...

You are an atheist that thinks he knows what the Bible says because you watched a video by a guy that wants you to think he is smart because he read a book.

I have an actual degree in theology.

Figure it out for yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure why the analogy of "or anyone" would not fit all the people through history who rebelled as JC against tyrannical governance would be so hard to decipher ?

or that through History their followers likewise is one regard or another deified their leaders, particularly those who gave their lives for their cause. - the "Red Book" if Bibliciesed would be a good example.

George Washington is another ...

.

But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

You've mixed excerpts from two unrelated posts here...

Pogo: ... although the interviewer herself is prolly the worst interviewer ever

ok, i listened to the interview - Fox and QW have a remarkable commonality ...

Pogo: But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

oh, maybe if you remove 1800 + years of advancement in civilization and put those two back to year 0 wait 150 years and write a book of their accomplishment you could quite easily have the same outcome as given to JC ...

which is to say I agree with Reza Azlan in as much as what was decipherable from the interview.

and does make a great deal of sense - as what happened was "mixed excerpts from two unrelated" (events) rebellion and religion was the ensuing outcome known as the Biblical interpritation.


* as previously stated however i am not excluding the possibility Divine intervention did not in some way play a role in all the events above.

.

In other words, you prefer fantasy to actual scholarly research. Did you look at the link I provided that describes some of the problems with Aslan's scholarship, or do you prefer to be ignorant?

 

[Pogo]

And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...

Discussion is now "poison". I'm gonna save that one. That's pure gold.

Next...

You are an atheist that thinks he knows what the Bible says because you watched a video by a guy that wants you to think he is smart because he read a book.

I have an actual degree in theology.

Figure it out for yourself.

"Theology"? Is that what you call making up stuff and attributing it to other people?

I never said I was an atheist either. Whoops.

"Degree in theology" -- sure you do. I myself have degrees in microbiology, time travel and quantum psychics. You have a degree in trollology. Go exercise it somewhere else. Your endless Poison the Well fallacies are as irrelevant as you are.

You do know what Poisoning the Well means, do you not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...

Discussion is now "poison". I'm gonna save that one. That's pure gold.

Next...

You are an atheist that thinks he knows what the Bible says because you watched a video by a guy that wants you to think he is smart because he read a book.

I have an actual degree in theology.

Figure it out for yourself.

"Theology"? Is that what you call making up stuff and attributing it to other people?

I never said I was an atheist either. Whoops.

"Degree in theology" -- sure you do. I myself have degrees in microbiology, time travel and quantum psychics. You have a degree in trollology. Go exercise it somewhere else. Your endless Poison the Well fallacies are as irrelevant as you are.

You do know what Poisoning the Well means, do you not?

Never said you are an atheist?

What are we teaching our kids with the Santa Claus tradition? Does it promote 'belief', or warn us against being gullible?

Good question. I remember when my Mom sat me down and said "I guess you know by now Santa isn't real-- don't tell your younger siblings" ... well no, I hadn't realized that, and why would you make up a story like that? It left me bewildered.

I wouldn't say it made me an "atheist" since Santa's got nothing to do with religion, but it did teach me to question things. And then Catholic school reinforced that lesson.

 

[Pogo]

You are an atheist that thinks he knows what the Bible says because you watched a video by a guy that wants you to think he is smart because he read a book.

I have an actual degree in theology.

Figure it out for yourself.

"Theology"? Is that what you call making up stuff and attributing it to other people?

I never said I was an atheist either. Whoops.

"Degree in theology" -- sure you do. I myself have degrees in microbiology, time travel and quantum psychics. You have a degree in trollology. Go exercise it somewhere else. Your endless Poison the Well fallacies are as irrelevant as you are.

You do know what Poisoning the Well means, do you not?

Never said you are an atheist?

What are we teaching our kids with the Santa Claus tradition? Does it promote 'belief', or warn us against being gullible?

Good question. I remember when my Mom sat me down and said "I guess you know by now Santa isn't real-- don't tell your younger siblings" ... well no, I hadn't realized that, and why would you make up a story like that? It left me bewildered.

I wouldn't say it made me an "atheist" since Santa's got nothing to do with religion, but it did teach me to question things. And then Catholic school reinforced that lesson.

Uh- you just refuted your own point.

Seriously dood, you went over nine thousand of my posts, all the way back to last year -- and ended up shooting your own point in the mouth. Do you not read English?

I'll just watch.

 

[The Irish Ram]

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).

Since turning the other cheek has nothing to do with passivism or submission, I'll skip the rest of Mr. Yoder's expertise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Theology"? Is that what you call making up stuff and attributing it to other people?

I never said I was an atheist either. Whoops.

"Degree in theology" -- sure you do. I myself have degrees in microbiology, time travel and quantum psychics. You have a degree in trollology. Go exercise it somewhere else. Your endless Poison the Well fallacies are as irrelevant as you are.

You do know what Poisoning the Well means, do you not?

Never said you are an atheist?

Good question. I remember when my Mom sat me down and said "I guess you know by now Santa isn't real-- don't tell your younger siblings" ... well no, I hadn't realized that, and why would you make up a story like that? It left me bewildered.

I wouldn't say it made me an "atheist" since Santa's got nothing to do with religion, but it did teach me to question things. And then Catholic school reinforced that lesson.

Uh- you just refuted your own point.

Seriously dood, you went over nine thousand of my posts, all the way back to last year -- and ended up shooting your own point in the mouth. Do you not read English?

I'll just watch.

My ability to use Google does not prove that I am obsessing over your posts, sorry.

I refuted your idiotic claim that you don't support the idiot in the video that is such a poor scholar that even anti Christian bigots from the left dismiss him as a crank. You even got emotional, and refused to actually address the criticism of his methods from a fellow atheist that thinks Fox screwed up the interview.

Funny how they never think MSNBC screwed up interviews if one person on that network is an idiot, but we can pretend that makes sense just so you don't get confused. Excuse me, I mean more confused.

 

[Pogo]

Never said you are an atheist?

Uh- you just refuted your own point.

Seriously dood, you went over nine thousand of my posts, all the way back to last year -- and ended up shooting your own point in the mouth. Do you not read English?

I'll just watch.

My ability to use Google does not prove that I am obsessing over your posts, sorry.

I refuted your idiotic claim that you don't support the idiot in the video that is such a poor scholar that even anti Christian bigots from the left dismiss him as a crank. You even got emotional, and refused to actually address the criticism of his methods from a fellow atheist that thinks Fox screwed up the interview.

Funny how they never think MSNBC screwed up interviews if one person on that network is an idiot, but we can pretend that makes sense just so you don't get confused. Excuse me, I mean more confused.

Uh nooo, you tried to document me saying I'm an atheist and ended up doing the opposite. What is English, some kind of secret code to you? Does it go right in one empty ear and out the other that you continue to just make shit up, get called on it, and then proceed to do it again?

Nor did I say I "support" or "don't support" the subject (I can't say "in the video" since it's an audio feed, duh). Wait, let me guess -- you got no further than the interview and never went to the link, which is the whole purpose of the thread ...

And still obliviously hung up on the same Poisoning the Well fallacy...
Go troll somewhere else. You're obviously incompetent. This is a Religion forum, not Politics.

 

[The Irish Ram]

What turning the other cheek means if we don't lean on our own understanding:

It is a court honored action not to maim but to humiliate. Since most are right handed, the slap occurred to the right cheek of the victim or inferior, with the back of the right hand of the perpetrator or superior. Back hand being the humiliating part.
Even if the victim was innocent he had no recourse, because hitting back was punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. Jesus' method of dealing with the issue did 2 things.

Because you can't slap the left cheek with the back of your right hand:
It restored the victims dignity by showing that the victim can stand up to any hostility or accusation of the perpetrators. That this isn't over.
It created a new situation. It robs the perp of the power to humiliate the victim. It is an invitation to accuse, that the accuser is powerless to accomplish. He can't lower the victim's status by humiliating him any longer. The victim wins the day. No humiliation makes the victim equal to the one who wants to humiliate.

It is justice for the little guy, not submission. It is standing firm and standing up. < You are the Child of the Most High. Accept nothing less for yourself.

Another odd law was an accuser being allowed to remove the undergarments of the accused until the accuser is compensated for the wrong.
Jesus said if your innocent of the charge, and they take your undergarments, take off your tunic and hand that to them too, and show you have nothing to hide and will not be shamed.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
... is anyone capable of being on topic in this thread ?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
... is anyone capable of being on topic in this thread ?

.

The thread topic is based on a lying idiot, so the answer is no.