It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
Actually, violence as an answer to your own vengeance, then not justified. That is why the Bible says "Vengeance belongs to God". Therefore, He would still be within His rights.
But really, Jesus was saying that violence should not be your first choice, diplomacy is. And if diplomacy fails, walk away, but after you have given them your cloak and your cheek, then what else can you do? But defense for someone else, violence is justified for that, as long as the defenseless are being harmed or exploited at that moment.
There was no duplicitous message if you read the whole passage and the Bible. I am Quakerish and believe peaceful measures, but I am also a realist, there are times when violence is justified and this is the message that I get from this passage.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd think that the true "Son of God, that is without sin" would be able to miracle up a non-violent solution to the problem. Instead we have a largely human answer to a problem of abuse. More violence. So if Jesus was merely just a human, then yea I can totally sympathize with him using violence to defend the weak. However, Christians claim he is without sin and can perform miracles. So therefore, he should be able to carry out some sort of divine plan to get rid of them.
originally posted by: bb23108
Your argument rests on the assumption that Jesus was actually being violent. Perhaps it was more akin to a Zen Master shaking his cane at some blatant stupidity to clearly make his point. Anyway, we don't really know, so your argument is only as strong as your unfounded presumption.
And for him to be angry? There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Sometimes anger is required - it depends on the circumstance. Amongst these "robbers" (those who were violent and killed), it was likely the only way he could be heard.
Many people have a naive view of what being without sin actually means, and it usually is associated with white robes, a beatific smile, and non-action. That passive approach may have worked even relatively recently in India with Gandhi and the alpha culture there, but not likely in the West where action was and still is generally required to make an in-life direct point.
I look at Jesus as a brilliant spiritual Master who did whatever was necessary to instruct others in right life practices and love. That he was intense with a bunch of violent animal killers is not really surprising, given how much he loved all creatures. They all ended up killing him anyway to preserve their way of life - but to this day it is still thought by many that Jesus freely expressed himself at all costs (his life) for his principles, and specifically, for what was going on in that Temple.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Possibly, but I doubt it. Someone shaking a cane at people isn't effective if everyone knows you aren't going to use it.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already said that anger is only a sin according to Catholics who mistakenly think that the Divine Comedy is Christian dogma.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Being without sin is just that. You don't sin.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Then I hope you consider Jesus 100% human.
originally posted by: bb23108
Do you really think people would know that or not?
Okay, but given it is not established that Jesus was whipping people, what's your argument? Jesus was free to be angry and apparently it worked.
And what does that look like?
Yes, and he also realized the Divine, and then instructed his followers in the truth of life - always being in communion with God, regardless of what may test you.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Don't you think that could be a fairly diplomatic response?
Why do you presume He should have done a miracle? Do you expect miracles on demand?
So we are hypocrites if we DON'T become violent? And since when are we never permitted to get angry? Anger is a very human emotion, why deny that?
BTW, I'm NOT Catholic. Please refer to MY faith system.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd just expect that Jesus wouldn't be angry at something like this. To me, I'd expect Jesus to remain calm and solve the problem that way. Just seems kind of anti-Jesus to picture him angry.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Think of all sin. Jesus would do none of them. Ever.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This implies that Jesus isn't the son of god though. So if you believe this then there isn't much of a problem because then the claim that "Jesus is without sin" is obviously a lie since he was human. So if you believe this, then I have no argument. Humans are hypocritical all the time.
originally posted by: bb23108
Okay, that may be your expectation, but as I said before, this sounds like the common myth about Divine Beings in white robes, beatific smiles, and basically actionless.
Assuming Jesus existed (which I believe, given his Teachings are too brilliant to have been fabricated by a bunch of ordinary people), he was clearly a human! But he also appeared here with his message of spirituality from, about, in, and as a manifestation of, the Divine.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed (and his teachings aren't proof of his existence, for instance the Golden Rule existed before it was attributed to Jesus and has actually been attributed to a Greek). Everything else is hypocritical and contradictory.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So He doesn't have to do it just to prove anything, if you want a miracle then just ask.
How come He can't be God? Does God have a requirement from you that you feel dictates what God should be? OK, so you don't believe in God like that, but still, is there a requirement?
He was without sin. Anger is not a sin and if you say it is, then there's a lot of sinful people around right now, only they are flipping off other drivers or having temper tantrums in the grocery store lines.
Again, please look at the passage. Who did He scourge? Where did He scourge them? Why did He scourge them?
They deserved it and no one else was doing anything about it. That's why we have the law here, someone is doing something but there still are a lot of angry and violent people. You don't say the police are violent when they have to chase down a crack head who just shot up a house full of kids. But maybe that is unjustifiable to you?
You keep referring to Catholics, that is why I said that.
originally posted by: bb23108
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed (and his teachings aren't proof of his existence, for instance the Golden Rule existed before it was attributed to Jesus and has actually been attributed to a Greek). Everything else is hypocritical and contradictory.
Well then, you cannot accept Jesus as human then, since there is no such definitive proof.
I think he existed because of his teachings (yes, I know about the Golden Rule), his demonstrations, and his brilliance relative to giving both exoteric and esoteric instructions, his obvious references to initiations into spiritual (esoteric) states corroborated in other traditions, and his relationship of love with his followers.
So I have no problem defending his actions in the temple.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
If Christians can't get their own story straight, how is anyone supposed to take them and their claims seriously?....
Which is the beauty of Christianity. We don't have to agree on every point of any gray area. Some things are not just black and white.
Would you rather we be like Muslims and behead you if you didn't agree?