Jesus - expose

[waitasec]

hi kman, here's an interesting observation.

Just a few examples of the contradictions in the teachings and actions of the man called Jesus:


Seriously how do people follow this guy when you have things written about his character like that? Just because he told them they will go to hell otherwise???

What the hell Jesus? Seriously what were you thinking?

Is there a point for this debate?

What religion are you, perhaps I could assist you in exposing the flaws of your own religious idols.

not one argument presented ... just a few people showing their objection to your argument...which is pointless. but whatever.
however we did have one who attempted to present an argument

its call context....... both historical and biblical.....

but didn't provide the context to refute your argument.

just saying

 

[waitasec]

First example:
Oh dear. It looks like you have misquoted the verse in question. John 13:23 actually says:

"One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him."
John 13:23

So we'll throw this example out.

Second example:
Sadly, it looks like you have taken the verse out of context. I'm afraid that the verse you are attempting to make appear as a quote of Christ himself was actually a parable. It's the parable of the ten minas and the verse you quoted in Like 19:27 was actually spoken by a character in the story, not by Christ. See the parable here.

So this too is invalid.

Third example:
Shall we look at this verse in its entire context?

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6] 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Clearly Christ wasn't encouraging a holy way with a literal sword. He was simply pointing out that a Christian in a traditionally Jewish society would probably spread discord among family and friends.

Fourth example:
Once again, you have provided us with a verse out of context and a claim that is not founded. Jesus was not referring to all Jews like you insinuated, but specifically the hypocritical pharisees. See whole story here.

Fifth example:
Oh my...all of this misquoting you do is terrible. John 15:16 does not say what you wrote, but rather:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you."

Please try to quote your verses correctly. It makes your whole argument look silly if you can't even get the verse right- quite counterproductive if you ask me.

Sixth example:
Well, you almost got it right this time. Congratulations! Matthew 21:18 actually says:

"Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry."

But at least you got the story right! :yes: So Jesus withered a fig tree. Big deal. I suppose you don't ever cut your grass or trim your hedges.

Seventh example:
You only give us another grossly misquoted verse to go on. Mark 2:25-27 actually says:

"He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."


Now, is that all, or did you have more?

now here is a great example of how to refute an argument
just saying

 

[Jainarayan]

Third example:
Shall we look at this verse in its entire context?

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

This is not unlike the practice of sannyasas in Hinduism: world renunciates for the purpose of enlightenment and moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth, samsara). Attachment to the world is a stumbling block for enlightenment and salvation/liberation.

 

[Renji]

now here is a great example of how to refute an argument
just saying

What she said...

 

[waitasec]

This is not unlike the practice of sannyasas in Hinduism: world renunciates for the purpose of enlightenment and moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth, samsara). Attachment to the world is a stumbling block for enlightenment and salvation/liberation.

i am of the opinion that we are social animals, and to be cut off from our loved ones in order to gain enlightenment isn't enlightening, it's selfish...
unless i misunderstood what you meant by attachment to the world (as this is not unlike the practice of sannyasas in hinduism)

 

[Jainarayan]

i am of the opinion that we are social animals, and to be cut off from our loved ones in order to gain enlightenment isn't enlightening, it's selfish...
unless i misunderstood what you meant by attachment to the world (as this is not unlike the practice of sannyasas in hinduism)

I agree we are social animals; we have other animal drives and desires too. But a large part of most religious practices is to control or suppress those material desires. If we cling to them we can't focus on our own spiritual enlightenment. Yes, it may be selfish from the material world p.o.v.

However, we must also recognize that our svadharma, personal duty, is to serve in the world: "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty." B.G. 2.47 So there are times when it's wrong to give up the world.

We have a right (obligation?) to do our duty, however, we can't claim credit for the results; nor should we shun our duty for our own purposes. So, for some it may be their duty to give up the world; for others, it's not so.

I think I got away from myself.

 

[waitasec]

I agree we are social animals; we have other animal drives and desires too. But a large part of most religious practices is to control or suppress those material desires. If we cling to them we can't focus on our own spiritual enlightenment. Yes, it may be selfish from the material world p.o.v.

However, we must also recognize that our svadharma, personal duty, is to serve in the world: "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty." B.G. 2.47 So there are times when it's wrong to give up the world.

We have a right (obligation?) to do our duty, however, we can't claim credit for the results; nor should we shun our duty for our own purposes. So, for some it may be their duty to give up the world; for others, it's not so.

I think I got away from myself.

no worries...i think i got it.
lots of good things here...

it is no mystery that if a kid walks in a candy store and eats all they desire, there will be dire consequences . i believe that anything in access is not healthy, there is a balance we are all looking for. when we deprive ourselves in one area of our lives then we tend to overcompensate in another.

i like what you said about serving the world...it's a perspective that puts us in the world...we are a part of it and the not being entitled to the fruits of our action... speaks volumes to me especially as a song writer...

 

[Jainarayan]

i believe that anything in access is not healthy, there is a balance we are all looking for. when we deprive ourselves in one area of our lives then we tend to overcompensate in another.

Which is what the Buddha preached in the Middle Way.

 

[ChristineES]

hi kman, here's an interesting observation.





not one argument presented ... just a few people showing their objection to your argument...which is pointless. but whatever.
however we did have one who attempted to present an argument

but didn't provide the context to refute your argument.

just saying

Yes, it was pointless. Maybe we should not have said anything, but we get a little tired of seeing arguments with quotes out of context. I guess I should be used to it, but I don't think I ever will.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, it was pointless. Maybe we should not have said anything, but we get a little tired of seeing arguments with quotes out of context. I guess I should be used to it, but I don't think I ever will.

i get it...
i just couldn't single out photonic

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i get it...
i just couldn't single out photonic

:clap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Regarding the OP:

It's so awesome to see such original and intelligent vitriol.

You do realize that you can stay beautiful by eating your own bile.

 

[tarasan]

but didn't provide the context to refute your argument.

just saying

Now while I know you meant it to be cheeky I will restate that I am not going to converse with people who obviously arnt interested in whats true or not

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's so awesome to see such original and intelligent vitriol.

I found the formatting to be novel while the double-H in "HHMMMMMM........" is certainly unique. The ellipsis, on the other hand, was clearly over-done.

 

[Photonic]

i get it...
i just couldn't single out photonic

I don't exactly quote things very often, could you show me where I have quoted and why that context was incorrect? I'll be happy to remedy if so.

 

[waitasec]

I don't exactly quote things very often, could you show me where I have quoted and why that context was incorrect? I'll be happy to remedy if so.

maybe you mis understood my post...
i was bringing something to the OP attention...

there were 2 ways of which his argument was met...
with annoyance or how lindsey loo just blew him away with an actual argument ... and personally, those are the arguments i like...

i didn't mean to say you had no merit for being annoyed, of course you did. it's just this is a debating section where i like to read spunky arguments, that's all....
:sorry: for the misunderstanding.


edit:
for clarification please read post 22

 

[waitasec]

Now while I know you meant it to be cheeky I will restate that I am not going to converse with people who obviously arnt interested in whats true or not

yes i was being cheeky... :flirt:
and that isn't a restate, it's the 1st time you said anything about not conversing/responding to such tripe.


edit:
for clarification please read post 22