"Love Jesus."
| Shelved by: Calculon on 2012-09-20
78 Comments:
I can't wait to see the comments for this one
These "religious" people are the exact same as the pharisees who crucified Jesus in the "name of God."
There I disagree. There can be some standing up for your faith. This is not the case. Here, the kid overreacted, but in some cases violence for the Faith certainly is justified.
Love you enemies, turn the other cheek, if you are angry with your brother you already committed murder in your heart, should I go on? Peter cut the ear off a Roman servant "in defense of the faith", then Jesus told him to knock that shit off and put his goddamn ear back on. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that says violence is justified.
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword," or Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27, Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8 and John 2:13-16, where Jesus uses physical force to evict the money changers from the Temple.
Yeah, I replied to that in your same comment below.
Depends on which part of the Bible you look at. New Testament stuff (Jesus related), it typically "be nice"
Old testament stuff? Well. That was a bit more violent.
And interesting.
Yeah, I'm referring to the teachings of Jesus.
What a douche, Jesus would have never punched anyone. Seriously guys, like 90% of the bible is Jesus taking shit and giving back love. Does, "turn the other cheek," sound familiar? Anyone who thinks like this kid is an embarrassment to the basic human intelligence, of which, we are all capable.
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword," or Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27, Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8 and John 2:13-16, where Jesus uses physical force to evict the money changers from the Temple.
You do realize that "sword" allegorical in reference to division within a family, right? And the scene in the temple had nothing to do with "money" or "defending faith". That was the reaction to having allowed images of other gods (Caesar's head on the coin)within the temple, a grave blasphemy. Neither of theses give an approval of violence against "non believers", nor are they the only indicators of Jesus' personality. Context matters, even under a doctrine of sola scriptura, individual events and passages cannot stand alone.
The moneychangers turned the house of God into a business and Jesus was completely justified in driving them all out of there. That doesn't fly.
This single indecent still does not negate every other thing Jesus said about non-violence. This was one very specific action to a very specific problem. That doesn't fly.
Again, this was not a justified use of violence. However, to say that no violence is ever justified is silly. That's all I'm trying to say.
Imagine a world where no violence being justified was not silly. Defending yourself is one thing. Attacking someone in the name of a peaceful being is another.
Sure, great. I would only add defending the weak who are being attacked.
how is figting over who has the more peacefull way of worshiping an imaginary friend ever justified
I wasn't trying to say it negated anything. I was just trying to back you up by saying that Jesus' anger was justified because it is not only His Father's house, but also His, being a part of the Trinity. To make a profit off of a place of worship like they were was a blasphemy.
Here's my take on it:
Jesus speaks in symbolism and metaphors. The sword he refers to is the sword of the Spirit, which brings the truth of the gospel. (See Ephesians 6:10-18) This sword isn't there for physical violence.
The truth of the gospel is hard for sinners to hear. In fact if the heart is hardened against the truth and the Holy Spirit speaks to the heart it will feel like a deep cut to the heart as if with a sword.
As far as Jesus driving the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem, vengeance belongs to God alone. It is true that they were making a mockery of what was supposed to be worship in the temple. God was there to take retribution. To apply this to our day, if someone is on private property (say owned by a church) they have the legal right to force them off the property by asking them to leave or calling the police. If damage is done, there is a process through which payment can be attained.
Long story short, Luke 6:27-28 "27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."
This is all we have charge to do in the name of the Lord.
Stop using the bible to justify bullshit, it also says slaves are ok, should we own slaves? It was written long ago, for a different world and YOU, the individual are responsible for your own actions.
It was written a long time ago. That doesn't mean that it's lessons don't apply to today. And as for slavery, the Bible's focus is on getting to the afterlife. Slavery is a terrible thing, there is no doubt, but the focus of the Bible is not to improve this life, but to allow us to prosper in the next.
So you'd be ok being a slave? Spending you're entire life at the will of someone else? You're that sure heaven will be worth it? If so, what's the point of even being here. If god has the power to make a parallel universe , "heaven," then why don't we all just go and die. This is the only life you can know for sure. I don't care what anyone believes. We're here, that's not faith, that's fact. Anything that doesn't seek to improve life here is probably harming it and has no place.
I dunno, some people need to get punched in the face. I'm not saying they deserve anything more violent, but some people seriously need a good sucker punch. Love Jesus. Also, Atheism is the religion of Communists.
I don't mind a good face punch now and then, just keep me the fuck out of it!
Can't tell if sarcasm, or the 1950's are leaking.
This^ Before you pull the communist card, look up what communism is. Since everyone is essentially the same in communism, they literally can have no Deity. But look at some people. Confucianism doesn't have a deity but people who follow it aren't bad people.
Communism places emphasis on equality regardless of rank or anything like that. Atheism caters to that better, since there isn't a diety.... I think you are leaking some 1950's as well, not all communists are bad, it's just the people who abuse the system that are, such as just about anyone in charge of a communist regime.
Never said Communism was bad... even equated them to Confucianists, a people I respect highly... considering I am one.
You did not, you are absolutely right. I misread what you wrote. Most of us know what communism is though, I am fairly certain.
Absolutely, some just pretend to hide it =P
Ladies and gentlemen! Fellow lolbrarians! Behold, the single most ignorant comment in all of these hallowed archives!
I agree. I was talking to a friend about this the other day. More people could do better by simply asking "What would Jesus do?"
Thanks Dad. Think I need another trip down to the good ol' blue sphere? Or would it even make an effect?
At this point, the whole place is basically Mexico. It's a fun place to party, but I don't think I like you spending too much time there.
More proof that "your beliefs don't make you a good person. Your actions do."
I'll never understand people like this Grant kid. How can a person be so passionate about something that they so profoundly misunderstand?
I see no difference between people like this and the "Muslims" they claim are worse.
A violent radical Christian = A violent radical Muslim = A violent radical Pagan = A violent radical Scientologist, etc. If a persons religion leads them to violence they're doing it way wrong.
The Oatmeal has a great piece called "How to Suck at Your Religion."
Kid obviously overreacted, but come on. It's the text of the pledge of allegiance. Just say it. You're not going to stop using cash because it has the word God on it.
"In God We Trust" and "under God" were added in the 40's to separate "us" from "those godless commies." These religious ideals were in no way intended to be a part of the American political system, no matter what historical revisionists have to say about it.
The fact that religion is a factor at all appalls me. Every American has the right to choose what he or she wants to believe in. If that happens to be a flying spaghetti monster let it be!!! What the hell does it have to with you! why does everyone in the fucking country have to get up in other peoples business? If you dont approve of someone else train of thought or beliefs then dont fucking hang around them! its that fucking simple. Why would anyone think that someone deserves to be punched over a philosophy?!
My dad said something interesting when I said "Christian" and "Americans" in the same sentence.
"There are very few Christians in America. They say they're Christians, because they believe in Christ, but they don't act like Christians. As such, they are not Christian, just people who believe in God but don't follow his teachings."
My teachings are peace, compassion, love, and understanding. Using my bible as a means to endorse violence is a grotesque misunderstanding of any original intentions. Bottom line, quit fucking using me to get your way! I'm not a fucking pawn you can use to justify being an asshole. Also, don't fuck w nixie!
The concept of God swearing amuses me.
And my family, apparently it's genetic.
Old Testament God is an entirely different god, so some say.
and outta nowhere too! She was not that hot in40 year old virgin
"Christianity" is abroad term that covers many widely varying beliefs and ideas regarding the nature of God and Christ, including this one.
It's necessary that the John 3:16 god be the Genesis god if you wish for the religion to begin to make sense.
Wasn't the bible assembled by a large group of men who had agendas? Anyone see The Da Vinci Code?
It's called nominal Christianity or cultural Christianity. Christian by name not by faith, it cripples Christianity's message by cheapening it to a flippant title.
"Im gonna punch the love of jesus right into you"
The phrase "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until the early 1950s.
"BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE OR I WILL HURT YOU"
I'm sure Jesus would have really supported that @_@.
Seems miller13 was right. What a shitstorm. In other news; it's wrong that this guy Grant used violence because someone had a diffrent faith(or lack of faith) than him. He really is no better than the muslim extremist groups that America are so afraid of, and despises so much.
