Happy Atheist Forum

One of those shower questions, you know the sort of question that pops into one's mind while there is nothing much else to think about.

As I perceive the stereotypical Jesus he was portrayed as an essentially peace loving individual who would not endorse violence. If he were alive today would he own and/or carry a side arm? I don't think he would, if for no other reason than as the Son of God he would appreciate he didn't need to as whatever happened to him would have been the will of his Father (himself). But I don't think the Jesus that I see would have carried a gun anyway, it would not have been his 'style' for want of a better word. IF that supposition is correct, that he would not have carried a gun, would it be reasonable to expect his followers to do the same? I would contend that it would be the case that Jesus would have told his followers not to carry guns as he espoused a peaceful world view.

So should a Christian own and/or carry a side arm? My answer would be no, as it would go against the ideals of Jesus.

What do you think?

Well they didn't have guns back then, but...

Quote from: Jesus"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth.  I have come to bring not peace but the sword.  For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'".   (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB) (http://www.evilbible.com/February.htm)

Quote from: JesusBut now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke: 22:36) (http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm)

Quote from: "elliebean"Well they didn't have guns back then, but...

Quote from: "Jesus""Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth.  I have come to bring not peace but the sword.  For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'".   (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB) (http://www.evilbible.com/February.htm)

Quote from: "Jesus"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke: 22:36) (http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm)

Now this sort of thing was never mentioned, that I recall, at any time to me while I was a child. So for me these would be atypical of the character my RE teachers and vicar were trying to illustrate to me when I was a child. They would have been much more of the 'turn the other cheek' persuasion, peaceful Mr Nice Guy type of picture. Thanks for the input Ellie, hope things are going a little better for you now.

Even as a child I marvelled at Jesus's  anger at the moneylenders in the Temple.  I don't think he'd have a problem packing iron.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Even as a child I marvelled at Jesus's  anger at the moneylenders in the Temple.  I don't think he'd have a problem packing iron.

Interesting. I appreciate the example and as a kid I was surprised by that story as it seemed so out of character with the rest of the descriptions of him. But you don't see it that way so am I right in thinking the the Jesus character was portrait in a more macho character in your experiences?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Even as a child I marvelled at Jesus's  anger at the moneylenders in the Temple.  I don't think he'd have a problem packing iron.

Interesting. I appreciate the example and as a kid I was surprised by that story as it seemed so out of character with the rest of the descriptions of him. But you don't see it that way so am I right in thinking the the Jesus character was portrait in a more macho character in your experiences?

No, I marvelled exactly because he was always portrayed as meek, and not aggressive; you know, the whole "lamb of god" thing (not to be confused with the dingbat spammer, ) was pounded into my head.  So when I came across the moneychangers story, I was amazed.  

But it certainly changed how I looked at Jesus, and prompted a closer reading of the Gospels, which (especially Matthew) reveal a dark side to Jesus.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"...a dark side to Jesus.

What a great potential book title! The Dark Side... of Jesus.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Even as a child I marvelled at Jesus's  anger at the moneylenders in the Temple.  I don't think he'd have a problem packing iron.

Interesting. I appreciate the example and as a kid I was surprised by that story as it seemed so out of character with the rest of the descriptions of him. But you don't see it that way so am I right in thinking the the Jesus character was portrait in a more macho character in your experiences?

No, I marvelled exactly because he was always portrayed as meek, and not aggressive; you know, the whole "lamb of god" thing (not to be confused with the dingbat spammer, ) was pounded into my head.  So when I came across the moneychangers story, I was amazed.  

But it certainly changed how I looked at Jesus, and prompted a closer reading of the Gospels, which (especially Matthew) reveal a dark side to Jesus.

Understood, and agreed. The money changer incident did show a side of 'righteous anger' that was quite atypical of the general image of Jesus.

I have always maintained that to show annoyance/anger at somebody else's behaviour is sometimes warranted because it is an honest expression of one's feelings. Maintaining a civil good mannered attitude is a good thing, until somebody exploits that behaviour to there own benefit. At which point they should be told in blunt terms they have overstepped the mark. In many ways that's how children learn from adults, by finding the boundary of acceptable behaviour and if they never get shown the boundary how can they find out where it is.

The turn the other cheek principle sounds nice, but doesn't seem practical.
I'm not a bible scholar, so I'm not familiar with the exceptions to the rule.

If I had a choice I wouldn't live in a place where carrying a gun was a normal everyday thing.

I can appreciate some admiration for things like battleships, aircraft even tanks as impressive human creations.
For some people such as farmers a gun is a legitimate tool.
Some people use them for sport.
For others guns seem to be part of a strange fetish.

As I understand it, side arms are designed for shooting people.
I've never heard of anyone taking them to shoot wild pigs or water buffalo.

A Christian may have reasons to have a sidearm, but their faith should give them strong reasons not to.

AFAIK some people DO hunt big game with side arms, and often carry a powerful hand gun for those moments when it's 'shit or bust' http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_re ... re_091806/ (http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/bigbore_091806/)  

Tank -- I agree much with your comments re: righteous anger.  There is certainly a place for it.  I was just startled , in the context of the Gospels, by his anger there, or at the fig tree, or the comments on family.

About hunting with handguns, I would never go hunting without having one as a backup, especially if my rifle were bolt-action.

My father is a Christian and he always has one gun on his person, one in his car and at least a half dozen in the home.  He has hunted with a handgun (not very successfully though).  

It's been my experience that good Christians do whatever they want unless there is something in the scripture that could be interpreted as forbidding it.  My father says there is nothing in the bible about guns so it's OK.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"My father is a Christian and he always has one gun on his person, one in his car and at least a half dozen in the home.  He has hunted with a handgun (not very successfully though).  

It's been my experience that good Christians do whatever they want unless there is something in the scripture that could be interpreted as forbidding it.  My father says there is nothing in the bible about guns so it's OK.

Which of course makes nuclear weapons fine to  

Quote from: "humblesmurph"My father is a Christian and he always has one gun on his person, one in his car and at least a half dozen in the home.  He has hunted with a handgun (not very successfully though).  

It's been my experience that good Christians do whatever they want unless there is something in the scripture that could be interpreted as forbidding it.  My father says there is nothing in the bible about guns so it's OK.

 

Quote from: "Tank"Which of course makes nuclear weapons fine to  

yup. chemical weapons too.  You can only use them on bad people though.

Don't like the wording of the question, but my opinion is that yes, anyone where it is legal to own and carry should be able to (subject to all applicable laws).

If I had time I would add a couple of shooten irons to my avatar.
He looks about ready to draw.

NO

they are not to be trusted. especially in groups. they should be disarmed.

sounds crazy, but that's only because of the 'good christian' image. it shouldn't be seen as crazy. I know what they talk about among themselves. I'm convinced if it was made easy for them, they would eliminate everybody but other christians. and that means shooting them. and I have heard some chritians entertaining that notion, more than once.

so I would not trust one in the meantime not to partake of armed mischief, against a nonbeliever, in the name of his religion.

It's amazing how the original intent of a question can be interpreted in different ways!

Assuming Jesus had been born in our time and there were no laws prohibiting the carrying of side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have. IF my contention is correct (for arguments sake lets assume it is) the basis of the thought is that Christians would have to follow his lead and not carry side arms, because it would be against his peaceful world view. So should a Christian not take their lead from their godhead and also not carry a gun. For a Christian to carry a gun is, in my view, extremely un-Christian.

Quote from: "Tank"side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have.

I don't remember any mention of Jesus carrying a sword.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Tank"side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have.

I don't remember any mention of Jesus carrying a sword.

Same thought here. Now when I was a kid we definitely got fed 'Jesus Lite' none of you're going to Hell stuff. I don't think Jesus would have carried a weapon of any sort at any time, it would simply not have been his style.

Quote from: "Tank"It's amazing how the original intent of a question can be interpreted in different ways!

Assuming Jesus had been born in our time and there were no laws prohibiting the carrying of side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have. IF my contention is correct (for arguments sake lets assume it is) the basis of the thought is that Christians would have to follow his lead and not carry side arms, because it would be against his peaceful world view. So should a Christian not take their lead from their godhead and also not carry a gun. For a Christian to carry a gun is, in my view, extremely un-Christian.

I dunno.  Is being like Jesus what defines being Christian?  Jesus as a peaceful man I guess is debatable, although most people I know infer that he was. It seems to me that the thing that Jesus is most known for is martyrdom.  To me martyrdom is consistent with gun ownership. It seems the most common way to die for something you believe in is to grab a gun and start shooting at other people with guns who believe in something different.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Tank"It's amazing how the original intent of a question can be interpreted in different ways!

Assuming Jesus had been born in our time and there were no laws prohibiting the carrying of side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have. IF my contention is correct (for arguments sake lets assume it is) the basis of the thought is that Christians would have to follow his lead and not carry side arms, because it would be against his peaceful world view. So should a Christian not take their lead from their godhead and also not carry a gun. For a Christian to carry a gun is, in my view, extremely un-Christian.

I dunno.  Is being like Jesus what defines being Christian?  

Good question. I think that for some Christians emulating Jesus is supposed to be at the core of their 'relationship' with Him. But Jesus supposedly taught via parables and created aspirational guidance that was basically pacifist in nature. Your dads comment about guns not being mentioned in the Bible springs to mind. By his literal interpretation he avoids the 'spirit' of the Christian message of 'peace to all men'. We will never know what the alleged messages of Jesus are because Christian themselves can't come up with a common set of messages.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jesus as a peaceful man I guess is debatable, although most people I know infer that he was. It seems to me that the thing that Jesus is most known for is martyrdom.  To me martyrdom is consistent with gun ownership. It seems the most common way to die for something you believe in is to grab a gun and start shooting at other people with guns who believe in something different.

The resurrection of Jesus is a pillar of Christianity, and as you say this was an act of martyrdom as Jesus gave himself up to the Romans knowing full well what would happen. But I don't see the act of martyrdom as being linked to any weapon of any sort. In fact IMO it's a passive acceptance of ones fate really. Ok there may have been a 'shoot out' prior to capture but the martyr essentially goes to their death at the behest of others. And while going down in a blaze of glory probably is the most common way to die in the story of Jesus it is the fact that it happened in a passive way that makes it an essentially Christian ending to my mind. It's because Jesus gave himself up to his fate that he gave an example for others to follow. I contend that this was not a last minute change of heart but a continuation of his style of passive resistance and trust in God (himself(his father)).

For a true Christian to carry a gun is the same to me as putting a lightning conductor on a church, it demonstrates a lack of faith in God.

point taken Tank.  I haven't read a bible in years.

Question, Would David Koresh count as a modern day Jesus? He didn't seem to have a problem with guns.  Maybe guns would be a necessity for Jesus in modern times because any man that could provoke such blind devotion might need to protect himself from people who would inevitably target him as a threat.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"point taken Tank.  I haven't read a bible in years.

Question, Would David Koresh count as a modern day Jesus? He didn't seem to have a problem with guns.  Maybe guns would be a necessity for Jesus in modern times because any man that could provoke such blind devotion might need to protect himself from people who would inevitably target him as a threat.

Well that is a valid point, that Jesus may well have carried a gun today. But I would offer up this thought, what would the son of God have to fear on Earth if he were immortal? Nothing I assume, so why carry a gun? The other thing is that Jesus never was the son of God anymore than David Koresh was, although he may have deluded himself to the point where he believed he was. But Koresh still behaved in an essentially mortal way while Jesus appears not to have done so.

Personally I would find it much harder to give credence to a gun toting 'second coming' than a pacifist one simply on the basis of the prior stereotypical presentation of Jesus as a peaceful man. And this lead to the 'shower thought' in the OP, should a Christian carry a gun as it is an implement that can take the lives of others? Even in self defence one could essentially be exercising 'free will' against Gods wishes that one should die at a particular time.

I mean it's all a bunch of bollocks anyway in that Jesus (if he existed) was not the son of god, but for those who do believe he was and follow the 'spirit' of what I think Christianity is all about then I can't see how a Christian could countenance carrying a gun. To me it would appear hypocritical to pray to ones God of an evening to 'Keep me safe' and then to carry a gun around as 'back up' just in case God didn't get the message. But then again theism is full of contradictions so I don't suppose I should expect anything less really.  

Quote from: "McQ"Don't like the wording of the question, but my opinion is that yes, anyone where it is legal to own and carry should be able to (subject to all applicable laws).

I agree. However, where I live, many Christians at least own firearms for defense. I find it a huge contradiction to their own belief system. In my opinion, no Christian should WANT to own a firearm for defensive purposes.

Quote from: "Tank"It's amazing how the original intent of a question can be interpreted in different ways!

Assuming Jesus had been born in our time and there were no laws prohibiting the carrying of side arms would the stereotypical peaceful Jesus have carried one? I contend that he would not have. IF my contention is correct (for arguments sake lets assume it is) the basis of the thought is that Christians would have to follow his lead and not carry side arms, because it would be against his peaceful world view. So should a Christian not take their lead from their godhead and also not carry a gun. For a Christian to carry a gun is, in my view, extremely un-Christian.

The stereotypical peaceful Jesus probably would not have. Then again, there's little reason to believe that picture of Jesus is accurate. I've always been a bit amused by it. It's hard to imagine a polite, non-violent, love-filled flower-child-Jesus that most of us are presented with--especially when you add the liberal theological picture of one was PC before PC was cool and never would have claimed to be God, the Messiah, etc.--going and doing something offensive enough to get himself crucified.

There's much more evidence that Jesus was a very hard man. People just see him described as "meek" and "humble" and make bad assumptions about what those words mean. They do NOT mean quiet, lowly, and self-deprecating. They actually refer to power under absolute control (viz., a horse with a bit in its mouth--a very powerful creature easy to control; that is "meek") and not thinking more highly of one's self than one's status allows. If Jesus thought he was God, then it wouldn't be much for him to be humble. What truly made him humble wasn't self-deprecation--he did just the opposite--it was his intention to serve others even though he was God. Even the staunchest unbeliever can see the humility in that. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, Jesus really was God in the flesh, the God who created the entire universe, the King of Kings. In that case, he is the last person you would expect to bend down to serve anyone. Now, whether or not he was God in the flesh, if he thought of himself that way . . . well, there's the humility.

To bring this back to the question of the thread, since there is no reason to buy into the pacifist Jesus, there is no reason to think that Christians shouldn't be willing to defend themselves. If someone threatens my family, I promise you, I'd have no problem pulling the trigger.

And so "turn the other cheek" ... ?  What of that?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And so "turn the other cheek" ... ?  What of that?

That's immediately what popped into my head too - is there some kind of caveat attached to that which I'm unaware of?

I seem to remember something about love thy neighbour and thou shalt not kill.

Quote from: "Jac3510"{snip}
The stereotypical peaceful Jesus probably would not have.
{snip}

Snipped out the other stuff because it was all reasonable.

However the bit I retained interests me. Consider the Christians that do perceive stereotypical peaceful Jesus are there any? And would it be reasonable to expect them to attempt to emulate JC as they perceive him to be? I does strike me as hypocritical to aspire to emulate a 'perception' of peace and love and still carry a gun. Have you met Christians that cast JC in the peace loving lamb of God that do carry guns?

Well, a lot of them are the same sort of people who come up with words like 'peacekeeper'.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And so "turn the other cheek" ... ?  What of that?

Jesus' statement here shouldn't be interpreted in a pacifist sense. It is one of six "you have heard it said, but I say to you" statements (on murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, lex talionis, and loving our enemies). Each of these are examples of how He fulfills rather than abolishes the Law of Moses. A little background on rabbinical thought helps here. The OT by various counts had over 600 written laws. The Pharisees developed some thirteen hundred more (I think that is right; I don't have my references right on hand, but I know it was over a thousand) oral laws. These were meant to "fence in the law," the idea being that if you didn't break the oral law, which was supposed to be stricter than the written law, you had now way of breaking the Mosaic Law.

Without going into too much detail, what Jesus is doing in this part of the Sermon on the Mount is laying out His own oral law as compared to the Pharisaical oral law. It turns out that you could, at least from Jesus' POV, keep the oral law as it was established and yet break the written law. His laws were not intended to be stricter. Rather than fencing the written law in, His laws were extrapolating the basic spiritual principle. To take only one case, the OT commanded we not murder; Jesus says don't even be angry. Why? Because if you are not even angry with anyone, you can't be provoked to murder. He recognizes that sin starts in the heart. He is not changing the OT law, nor is He making it any stricter. He is getting at the core issue that was always in it that the Jewish establishment of His day had missed.

As for "turn the other cheek," He was challenging their notion of lex talionis. The OT, as you well know, says "an eye for an eye." That was not intended to be prescriptive. It was intended to be a limiter--if someone takes your eye, the most you can do is take their eye in return. Today we say the same thing with the cliche, "The punishment must fit the crime." The Law does not, then, REQUIRE an eye be taken for an eye. Jesus, then, gets to the spiritual truth of the matter. If someone strikes you on your cheek, rather than striking them back, as the OT would permit, turn them the other, as the OT would also permit. In this way, you stand absolutely no chance of breaking the OT law, and, in fact, honor it more by leaving all judgment to God!

Clearly, this has nothing to do with whether or not you can defend yourself or others from immediate danger.

Sorry for the tl;dr on this . . .

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I seem to remember something about love thy neighbour and thou shalt not kill.

Actually, "kill" is better rendered "murder" as all modern translations have it.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Jac3510"{snip}
The stereotypical peaceful Jesus probably would not have.
{snip}

Snipped out the other stuff because it was all reasonable.

However the bit I retained interests me. Consider the Christians that do perceive stereotypical peaceful Jesus are there any? And would it be reasonable to expect them to attempt to emulate JC as they perceive him to be? I does strike me as hypocritical to aspire to emulate a 'perception' of peace and love and still carry a gun. Have you met Christians that cast JC in the peace loving lamb of God that do carry guns?

Yes, it is reasonable to expect them to emulate their understanding of JC and not purchase weapons of any kind. There are, however, two complications with this obvious (and correct!) point:

1. Human beings are capable of an incredible level of cognitive dissonance. That has only gotten amplified in our post-modern culture. Most people, Christian or not, as I'm sure you know and agree, don't stop to think through whether or not their positions on one issue are compatible with the stated beliefs on others.
2. As a special case of (1), such Christians usually have a self-contradictory view of Jesus in that, seeing Him as a pacifist, they still cite some of the passages that have been mentioned in this thread as the basis for their . . . ah . . . packing. They don't even bother trying to harmonize the two positions because the inconsistency hasn't been pointed out to them.

So your point is well taken. The issue simply needs to be pointed out to them so they can either change their behavior or their view of Jesus.

Thanks Jac3510, that was interesting.

If the Xians get side arms, can I have an atheist RPG? Or maybe a flamethrower or something?

I don't think anyone should own a firearm unless they are active hunters, regardless of their religious beliefs or locale.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I don't think anyone should own a firearm unless they are active hunters, regardless of their religious beliefs or locale.

Haha you sound so European. (I agree though).

Personally, as a Southerner, I would give up my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers... but I used to hunt and I think owning a gun is akin to owning a fishing rod.  It has nothing to do with my beliefs or my political affiliation, it's just how I grew up, I guess.

I don't like handguns though.

Quote from: "Cecilie"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I don't think anyone should own a firearm unless they are active hunters, regardless of their religious beliefs or locale.

Haha you sound so European. (I agree though).

European? EUROPEAN?!  :D

Did anyone vote 'no' in the poll for political rather than theological reasons, meaning, they don't  think anyone should own a gun?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Did anyone vote 'no' in the poll for political rather than theological reasons, meaning, they don't  think anyone should own a gun?

Yup.

Jac:  Thanks for the detailed reply.  I'm not sure I agree, but it's gotta simmer in my brain a bit before I can formulate it, so forgive me this insubstantive acknowledgement.

Martin, I hear you.  I was taught to handle a gun at 8, and it had nothing to do with religion, or its absence, but simply because, as a Junior Redneck®, it was part of my training course, so to speak..

Later in life, I saw the benefits of such training, and I am teaching my son the same principles as taught to me, so that he can understand that a gun is not a toy, nor a status symbol, but an instrument of death, to be handled with due respect.

Jesus told his followers to sell whatever they had to to buy swords, because when he was gone they would be considered among the criminals.

I think it's safe to say that even if he didn't carry a gun (what with being able to do miracles and all), he would probably instruct his followers to. Today, a gun is the equivalent of a sword.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Did anyone vote 'no' in the poll for political rather than theological reasons, meaning, they don't  think anyone should own a gun?

Yup.

Well that kind of skews the poll . . . it seemed to me Chris was asking about the relationship between Christian theology and gun ownership, as hw seemed to have detected a level of hypocrisy. :p

n/m

edit:
Thumpalumpacus, very welcome. If I was unclear on anything or if you think I've missed an important fact somewhere, let me know and I'll be happy to clarify/modify.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I think it's safe to say that even if he didn't carry a gun (what with being able to do miracles and all), he would probably instruct his followers to. Today, a gun is the equivalent of a sword.

Just to argue semantics, a sword is still a sword. A gun is not a modern day equivalent, but a totally different kind of weapon.

That said, whatever happened to turning the other cheek..? Oh wait... Jesus was a hypocrite... Nevermind...  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I think it's safe to say that even if he didn't carry a gun (what with being able to do miracles and all), he would probably instruct his followers to. Today, a gun is the equivalent of a sword.

Just to argue semantics, a sword is still a sword. A gun is not a modern day equivalent, but a totally different kind of weapon.

That said, whatever happened to turning the other cheek..? Oh wait... Jesus was a hypocrite... Nevermind...  lol  WELL SAID!!!!!!

Quote from: "Jac3510"Well that kind of skews the poll . . .

Just wanted to see the results. Hangonnasec... I'll change to "Other"  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Well that kind of skews the poll . . .

Just wanted to see the results. Hangonnasec... I'll change to "Other"  

Thanks Jac3510 was correct in his assessment of the OP.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Jac3510"{snip}
The stereotypical peaceful Jesus probably would not have.
{snip}

Snipped out the other stuff because it was all reasonable.

However the bit I retained interests me. Consider the Christians that do perceive stereotypical peaceful Jesus are there any? And would it be reasonable to expect them to attempt to emulate JC as they perceive him to be? I does strike me as hypocritical to aspire to emulate a 'perception' of peace and love and still carry a gun. Have you met Christians that cast JC in the peace loving lamb of God that do carry guns?

Yes, it is reasonable to expect them to emulate their understanding of JC and not purchase weapons of any kind. There are, however, two complications with this obvious (and correct!) point:

1. Human beings are capable of an incredible level of cognitive dissonance. That has only gotten amplified in our post-modern culture. Most people, Christian or not, as I'm sure you know and agree, don't stop to think through whether or not their positions on one issue are compatible with the stated beliefs on others.
2. As a special case of (1), such Christians usually have a self-contradictory view of Jesus in that, seeing Him as a pacifist, they still cite some of the passages that have been mentioned in this thread as the basis for their . . . ah . . . packing. They don't even bother trying to harmonize the two positions because the inconsistency hasn't been pointed out to them.

So your point is well taken. The issue simply needs to be pointed out to them so they can either change their behavior or their view of Jesus.

Point 1, is IMO pretty much spot on. Lots of people will claim that XYZ is the right way to behave, but do ABC because it suits them better to do so for some other reason. Humans can be very hypocritical when it suits them.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Just to argue semantics, a sword is still a sword. A gun is not a modern day equivalent, but a totally different kind of weapon.

That said, whatever happened to turning the other cheek..? Oh wait... Jesus was a hypocrite... Nevermind...  

It says that Jesus told his disciples the meaning of everything in private, but to those on the outside, he spoke in parables so they wouldn't understand and be saved. You are an athesit, and you like being an atheist. It's obvious. You would be exactly the type that would be deceived by parables in order to prevent you from being saved.

I know you have a notion of what Jesus is from Sunday school. He's far more savage than that. He's God.

We can argue the scientific and philosophical reasons for believing in God all day long. But when it comes to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, understanding that mystery is only for the elect.

LOL! Now that's just EPIC hypocricy right there... When I get home from work, I might just argue a few points.

By the way, even if you believe all that Jesus-gibberish, a god he was not. An offspring of a sheep and a cactus would be a sheepactus, not a sheep.

Quote from: "Asmodean"LOL! Now that's just EPIC hypocricy right there... When I get home from work, I might just argue a few points.

By the way, even if you believe all that Jesus-gibberish, a god he was not. An offspring of a sheep and a cactus would be a sheepactus, not a sheep.

It would be a Cacteep!

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Asmodean"LOL! Now that's just EPIC hypocricy right there... When I get home from work, I might just argue a few points.

By the way, even if you believe all that Jesus-gibberish, a god he was not. An offspring of a sheep and a cactus would be a sheepactus, not a sheep.

It would be a Cacteep!

Sheepactus.  :hmm: )

Dude, you missed the perfect opportunity for a crocoduck joke.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Dude, you missed the perfect opportunity for a crocoduck joke.

That being another name for Jesus Zombificus Longsincedustus?  

I'm not sure of its scientific nomenclature, but here's a pic from a recent sighting.

eta:  Thanks, Pinko.

That there..?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Ftristan%2Fcrocoduck.jpg&hash=83a0cd43784fed8b08d83bd2a460f595bd1d9b6e)

Nice!  :D

Quote from: "Asmodean"Nice!  :D

That would be Cacteep.  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Nice!  :D

That would be Cacteep.  :rant:

oO(By the way, what would be plural of a Cacteep..?    )

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Nice!  :D

That would be Cacteep.  :rant:

oO(By the way, what would be plural of a Cacteep..?    )

Cactype?

Cacteepses?