Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
and then

As A Christian, When Is It Ok to Fight/Kill?

98 posts in this topic

Although to be fair, he is supposed to have gone peacefully rather than letting his disciples protect him or just not going to Jerusalem.

I think in those days, if they give you the death sentence, it was hard to aviod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in those days, if they give you the death sentence, it was hard to aviod

I would have thought it would be easier to avoid if anything. He had lots of supporters and an entire country to disappear into. Back then, a change of name and moving town would be enough for most to disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought it would be easier to avoid if anything.

If it were easier to avoid, then many would have done it, and you wouldn't hear of how barbaric it was back then ..

Back then, a change of name and moving town would be enough for most to disappear.

I can picture a new chapter - Jesus on the run ..Shows up in India later as Gandhi lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were easier to avoid, then many would have done it, and you wouldn't hear of how barbaric it was back then ..

How do you know many didn't? As you say, you wouldn't hear about it ;)

I can picture a new chapter - Jesus on the run ..Shows up in India later as Gandhi lol

I had him going back to carpentry. Which gets slightly Blackadder-esque very quickly :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny how people think you can't kill in Christianity.

It says though shalt not do murder, not though shalt not kill. Murder is illegal killing as defined by the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny how people think you can't kill in Christianity.

It says though shalt not do murder, not though shalt not kill. Murder is illegal killing as defined by the law.

Indeed "killing" is not out of the Christian jurisdiction

-God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

-God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.

-He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

-He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

-In (Judges 21) He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead

-In (2 Kings 10:18-27) God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

In total God kills 371,186 people . . . who obviously deserved it :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough I wasn't trying to be insulting towards Christians - I have respect for Traditional Catholics and Orthodox. I find the Evangelicals and Born-Again goody-two shoes types cringeworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In situations like that, even though I identify as Christian and hold to the majority of principles and beliefs, God has also given me common sense enough to protect myself and my family. Greater good can be achieved by safeguarding yourself, your family, continuing to live on and help others. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, that's life.

But is that an act of faith?

Christians were told to not hold onto the life in this age because it was quickly fading. Early Christians took that seriously, perhaps because they were under the impression that the age to come (kingdom of heaven) would come during their lifetime. The principle is still the same though:

We can't really live for God's kingdom so long as we are trying to prolong our stay here. I'm not advocating carelessness or suicide. I'm saying that, as Christians, we are commanded to take up our cross daily and follow Christ. Paul understood that and he renounced the world and its cares so that he could dedicate himself to the preaching of the Gospel and ministering to the needy. With his lifestyle, he stopped trying to build a future in this world.

So, why would we take another's life just to preserve a life in a world that is destroying itself anyway?

So, while you are completely reasonable in your response, it is not in line with the teachings of Christ. You are either living for this age or the age to come. In Jesus' words:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

So, again, would we kill to protect that which is fading? Perfectly reasonable if you are dedicated to this age, but not toward the kingdom of heaven.

This was an issue that the early Christians had when the Romans tortured and killed them and their families. They could either revolt or glorify God with their deaths. Drastically different from how people today would handle it. And that may be why the Church so often faces ridicule.

The book of Daniel was likely written just before the Maccabean revolt to encourage the Jews to suffer with dignity rather than take up arms. They took up arms and their nation was eventually destroyed by the ones they sought protection by.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is that an act of faith?

Christians were told to not hold onto the life in this age because it was quickly fading. Early Christians took that seriously, perhaps because they were under the impression that the age to come (kingdom of heaven) would come durimg their lifetime. The principle is still the same though:

We can't really live for God's kingdom so long as we are trying to prolong our stay here. I'm not advocating carelessness or suicide. I'm saying that, as Christians, we are commanded to take up our cross daily and follow Christ. Paul understood that and he renounces the world and its cares so that he could dedicate himself to the preaching of the Gospel and ministering to the needy. With his lifestyle, he stopped trying to build a future in this world.

So, why would we take another's life just to preserve a life in a world that is destroying itself anyway?

So, while you are completely reasonable in your response, it is not in line woth the teachings of Christ. You are either living for this age or the age to come. In Jesus' words:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

So, again, would we kill to protect that which is fading? Perfectly reasonable if you are dedicated to this age, but not toward the kingdom of heaven.

This was an issue that the early Christians had when the Romans tortured and killed them and their families. They could either revolt or glorify God with their deaths. Drastically different from how people today would handle it. And that may be why the Church so often faces ridicule.

The book of Daniel was likely written just before the Maccabean revolt to encourage the Jews to suffer with dignity rather than take up arms. They took up arms and their nation was destroyed by the ones they sought protection from.

You don't necessarily have to kill to protect yourself, or your family, I was thinking more a long the lines of incapacitating someone in an actual fight so to speak. I think God would be lenient, especially considering the eye for an eye doctrine. I realize that Christ countered that, but even still, I don't believe Jesus would sit by and let a child, or woman be attacked in His midst without stopping it. I don't think Christ would say to a woman, or child "let your attacker beat you or kill you, this life is fleeting, you're better off not being here". I honestly think if there were NO other options, JC would knock a would be attacker out cold if said attack was directed towards anyone other than Himself. Jacob wrestles with God is a good example of fighting without fighting. Also, I believe how God would judge such a situation would partially depend on the attitude of your heart. If you were attacked and you sought to defend yourself without intending to kill at all, and somehow you accidentally did kill, God would know that. If you took pleasure in fighting, now that's another story and you would probably be penalized for it.

Edited by WoIverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed "killing" is not out of the Christian jurisdiction

It may be wise to do an exegetical study before criticizing so quickly. The exegesis would show glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity as well as highlight topics that could be missed by a high-charged emotional response.

-God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

While it cannot be proved that this occurred, it can be understood that the author was trying to communicate the offensiveness of calling God a liar.

"I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:17, 18 ESV)

Why on earth would David reject God's promise and blessings? This is theological conundrum, not just a sociological problem.

-God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.

Why? What reason does the author give?

"Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, "It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land," whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. (Deuteronomy 9:4 ESV)

Again, a theological problem. God destroyed the Nephilim and their offspring because of the rampant wickedness, oppression, and injustice that they caused on earth. He destroyed the city of Sodom not long after they tried to rape the angels visiting Lot. And when Jerusalem became filled with injustice, he destroyed that city as well. It is persistent: God will not tolerate both rampant injustice and the destruction of His people. This is a good thing.

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you." (Psalms 5:4 ESV)

When women are burned with acid in Pakistan for being too beautiful, people in the US get greatly offended and stirred up. But when God destroys cities that throw their own children into fire as a sacrifice to a god they made with their hands, all a sudden its unjust of God to take action?

-He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

God was building a kingdom in occupied land. Even today, when a city is occupied by another nation, it creates resentment and violence. You don't think the Israelites were just going to get to walk in, take over the land, and everyone be okay with it, do you?

Again, a theological problem. If you are familiar with Balaam, he convinced the women of the nations being driven out to seduce the Israelite men. What happened was that the Israelites began tossing their firstborn into fires to gods they made with their hands.

Remember, God had promised to bless all nations through Abraham's seed. How could they be a blessing to humanity when they are embracing such wicked and destructive practices?

That is an important question. If you can look at rapists with disdain, this should not be an isue for you.

-He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

Theological question: Why did God utterly destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why didn't he just send a plague like He did to the invading Assyrian armies? And why was Lot commanded to not look back on the destruction?

Because God did not want the Isralites desiring anything of that former culture. Again, the Israelites were given that land so that wickedness would stop being practiced and that the land would receive its rest. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she desired Sodom and mournes its destruction. If God was intent on wiping out all influences of that culture, and Lot's wife wanted to hold onto that culture, it only makes sense that she would join in its destruction.

-In (Judges 21) He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead

Why?

-In (2 Kings 10:18-27) God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

You mean the prophets of Baal? The ones who persecuted the Israite prophets? And taught the Israelites to sacrifice their children and have licensed orgies? Did you know that excavations from those cultures revealed that nearly every adult had a sexually transmitted disease?

In total God kills 371,186 people . . . who obviously deserved it :huh:

You may want to learn more about their cultures. You have no problem criticizing God likely because of the hypocrisy and wickedness of those who claim to follow Him. And that is inherently the theological problem: You condemn the destruction of the wicked but not the destruction of wickedness. And so long as wickedness continues among God's people, how will you ever come to believe in the one true God?

Thus, while your argument is legitimate, it is contradictory. Those cultures were unjustified in their wickedness. The Israelites became seduced my those cultures and became wicked as well. And God destroyed Israel as well. Revelation 17 shows that the same fate awaits the Roman Church.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know many didn't? As you say, you wouldn't hear about it

30 pieces of silver lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't necessarily have to kill to protect yourself, or your family, I was thinking more a long the lines of incapacitating someone in an actual fight so to speak. I think God would be lenient, especially considering the eye for an eye doctrine. I realize that Christ countered that, but even still, I don't believe Jesus would sit by and let a child, or woman be attacked in His midst without stopping it.

I think the principle of the matter was that Christ would not have to judge because the world would judge itself on how it treated the righteous. The Jews persecuted God's people and they did not defend themselves. And Jerusalem was destroyed. The Romans tortured and killed the Christians and they did not defend themselves. And Rome fell to the Barbarians. The Barbarians and the Roman Church executed millions of Jews and they did not defend themselves. And the Roman Church is reserved for utter destruction (see Revelation 17 and 18.) Thus, Jesus brought judgment on the world by becoming a victim of their wickedness and not defending himself. We are called to carry the same witness.

"If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19 ESV)

I don't think Christ would say to a woman, or child "let your attacker beat you or kill you, this life is fleeting, you're better off not being here".

Early Christianity seems to disagree:

"But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives." (Luke 21:12-19 ESV)

If we are faithful in our suffering a clear line will be drawn between the guilty and the innocent. This especially important today, where men justify criminals and condemn the victims, calling that which is evil good and vice versa.

I honestly think if there were no other options, JC would knock a would be attacker out cold if said attack was directed towards anyone other than Himself.

What are you protecting? If you are a Christian and saved by Christ, what do you need to fight for? Hasn't God already delivered you by sealing His promises in the resurrection of Christ? And hasn't judgment on the world already begun? Why would you want to partake in that?

We build houses here that will eventually be torn down. But Christ is building us a mansion that lasts forever. The Jews would sacrifice several animals to only temporarily atone for sins. But Christ died once for all sins. Men fight to conquer nations only to promulgate the same destructive practices they originally set out to end. But Christ will rule righteously. This world seeks after worthless things. Even Solomon looked at it with melancholy when he said, "Everything is meaningless. There is nothing new under the sun." Men who invest 19.5 years into a company are filled with grief when the company conveniently downsizes to maximize profit. Likewise, the rich man in Luke 12:13-21's parable builds a bigger storehouse to enjoy a future of a long, happy life only to die that night. Christ has equipped us through His teachings not to invest in this world and thereby spare us the grief and disappointment of a wasted life.

Jacob wrestles with God is a good example.

Our flesh wrestles with God's Spirit when it comes to forsaking the desires of the flesh. How did God bless Jacob? God wounded Jacob's flesh so that Jacob would not boast in the vanity of his flesh but depend on God's strength. In Christ, our flesh has been wounded as well and we depend on God's strength rather than our own. That is not how the world operates and it draws a distinctive line between those who live by the flesh and those who live by God's Spirit.

"For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." (1 John 2:16 ESV)

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 pieces of silver lol

Sorry, not following. If you're suggesting people couldn't run because their friends would always betray them, that's a bit of a cynical view of the world :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be wise to do an exegetical study before criticizing so quickly. The exegesis would show glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity as well as highlight topics that could be missed by a high-charged emotional response.

While it cannot be proved that this occurred, it can be understood that the author was trying to communicate the offensiveness of calling God a liar.

"I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:17, 18 ESV)

Why on earth would David reject God's promise and blessings? This is theological conundrum, not just a sociological problem.

Why? What reason does the author give?

"Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, "It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land," whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. (Deuteronomy 9:4 ESV)

Again, a theological problem. God destroyed the Nephilim and their offspring because of the rampant wickedness, oppression, and injustice that they caused on earth. He destroyed the city of Sodom not long after they tried to rape the angels visiting Lot. And when Jerusalem became filled with injustice, he destroyed that city as well. It is persistent: God will not tolerate both rampant injustice and the destruction of His people. This is a good thing.

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you." (Psalms 5:4 ESV)

When women are burned with acid in Pakistan for being too beautiful, people in the US get greatly offended and stirred up. But when God destroys cities that throw their own children into fire as a sacrifice to a god they made with their hands, all a sudden its unjust of God to take action?

God was building a kingdom in occupied land. Even today, when a city is occupied by another nation, it creates resentment and violence. You don't think the Israelites were just going to get to walk in, take over the land, and everyone be okay with it, do you?

Again, a theological problem. If you are familiar with Balaam, he convinced the women of the nations being driven out to seduce the Israelite men. What happened was that the Israelites began tossing their firstborn into fires to gods they made with their hands.

Remember, God had promised to bless all nations through Abraham's seed. How could they be a blessing to humanity when they are embracing such wicked and destructive practices?

That is an important question. If you can look at rapists with disdain, this should not be an isue for you.

Theological question: Why did God utterly destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why didn't he just send a plague like He did to the invading Assyrian armies? And why was Lot commanded to not look back on the destruction?

Because God did not want the Isralites desiring anything of that former culture. Again, the Israelites were given that land so that wickedness would stop being practiced and that the land would receive its rest. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she desired Sodom and mournes its destruction. If God was intent on wiping out all influences of that culture, and Lot's wife wanted to hold onto that culture, it only makes sense that she would join in its destruction.

Why?

You mean the prophets of Baal? The ones who persecuted the Israite prophets? And taught the Israelites to sacrifice their children and have licensed orgies? Did you know that excavations from those cultures revealed that nearly every adult had a sexually transmitted disease?

You may want to learn more about their cultures. You have no problem criticizing God likely because of the hypocrisy and wickedness of those who claim to follow Him. And that is inherently the theological problem: You condemn the destruction of the wicked but not the destruction of wickedness. And so long as wickedness continues among God's people, how will you ever come to believe in the one true God?

Thus, while your argument is legitimate, it is contradictory. Those cultures were unjustified in their wickedness. The Israelites became seduced my those cultures and became wicked as well. And God destroyed Israel as well. Revelation 17 shows that the same fate awaits the Roman Church.

No, this time I am not going to let you get away with your patented "this is not My Christians" retort. Jesus is found in the NT warning everyone not to dismiss the OT, since it is the Word of God.

Nah, this IS the Abrahamic god and that good book is full of bad stuff.

** And don't even think about turning this into the Roman's Christianity . . . yeeeesh with you and your Christian apologetics!

You have decided that this god and Christianity are the correct and moral standard to be placed on all of Mankind . . . it just isn't so.

:whistle: trouble-maker!

Edited by Etu Malku
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not following. If you're suggesting people couldn't run because their friends would always betray them, that's a bit of a cynical view of the world :/

I never said no one would make a run for it.. I am saying many will dob them in for money.. and I am right.. many will do and have done

I know so many that would squeal on their grandmother to get a few bob lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this time I am not going to let you get away with your patented "this is not My Christians" retort. Jesus is found in the NT warning everyone not to dismiss the OT, since it is the Word of God.

Jesus also criticized the Jews of His days concerning how they interpreted the Law. So he drew a line between what was true Judaism and what was not. So I don't see why you're giving me flack.

Nah, this IS the Abrahamic god and that good book is full of bad stuff.

** And don't even think about turning this into the Roman's Christianity . . . yeeeesh with you and your Christian apologetics!

That isn't an argument. That is simply you trying to dismiss other arguments, expansions into Christian history, and the unfolding of exegesis. You can't set the limits to what is debateable simply because it doesn't impress you.

You have decided that this god and Christianity are the correct and moral standard to be placed on all of Mankind . . . it just isn't so.

Is that what its about to you? A moral standard? To me, its a theological matter. We'll never agree on a moral 'standard' until we agree on a theology. Bad theology creates bad religion, and bad religion is a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus also criticized the Jews of His days concerning how they interpreted the Law. So he drew a line between what was true Judaism and what was not. So I don't see why you're giving me flack.

where would one find this information about Yeshua?
That isn't an argument. That is simply you trying to dismiss other arguments, expansions into Christian history, and the unfolding of exegesis. You can't set the limits to what is debateable simply because it doesn't impress you.
No, this Christian apologetics, twisting everything into the story which they want to hear . . . it's an ancient tool that's been used quite a lot, particularly by Christians, who seem the need to rewrite this story over & over in order to fit whatever new agenda is at the time.
Is that what its about to you? A moral standard? To me, its a theological matter. We'll never agree on a moral 'standard' until we agree on a theology. Bad theology creates bad religion, and bad religion is a recipe for disaster.

Your statement:
"And so long as wickedness continues among God's people, how will you ever come to believe in the one true God?"
This required a comment, in that it is God's people who see this and other things as wicked, implying a moral standard on what is wicked in terms of the Christian eye, theology is blind in these matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who thought this question up--or was it a statement...? a real thought-provoker...i'm not ready to enter this conversation yet...i'll come back.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to live life you have to fight. end of story!

adapt or perish.

Edited by araxia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where would one find this information about Yeshua?

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Matthew 23:13, 23, 27, 28, 33-35 ESV)

I shortened it for you. Also, Flavius Josephus had a good bit to say: "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe wht are derived from the tradition of our forefathers..."

( The Antiquities of the Jews 13.10.6.297)

The Apocrypha book of Susanna was likely written about the civil war between the two that took place during the reign of Hyrcanus. Basically, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the Jewish version of the Catholic and Protestant sects of the Church. One has a big list of man-made commands an a huge following while the other sticks strictly to the written word of God. If Jesus proved both wrong in their religion and eschatology, why is it not okay to do the same today among Christians? It is obviously the same scenario.

No, this Christian apologetics, twisting everything into the story which they want to hear . . . it's an ancient tool that's been used quite a lot, particularly by Christians, who seem the need to rewrite this story over & over in order to fit whatever new agenda is at the time.

I disagree. Apologetics is traditionally a defence of Christianity that is orthodox to its beliefs. Apologetics originally developed as a debate between Jews and Christians. Its not twisting. You're just trying to force your views on us without giving us room to speak. If you don't like it happening to you, be the better man and stop doing it to others. A person who complains about one group's intolerance and at the same time shows intolerance back is a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?

Your statement:This required a comment, in that it is God's people who see this and other things as wicked, implying a moral standard on what is wicked in terms of the Christian eye, theology is blind in these matters.

That's not what I asked. Why is a moral standard all you are focusing on? Has someone tried to force their beliefs on you specificly? If so, can you give me an example?

And as I said, we cannot properly discuss moral standards until we properly interogate each other's theology. Notice that the early Christians didn't aim most of their arguments against the pagans to moral standards but rather the inadequacies of their theology. The pagans' immorality was evident in how they treated the Christians.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who thought this question up--or was it a statement...?

The guy who created the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pagans' immorality was evident in how they treated the Christians.
:cry: Surely you jest? Pagans didn't find anything immoral about their practices, that was something "forced" in everyone's ears by the . . . wait for it . . . Christians! Again we find ourselves creating the moral standard and acting as if it were the Word of god . . . oh wait, it was! :blink:

As for your "info" about Yeshua . . . these scriptures weren't written by the Nazarene, so you have no idea what He actually said about anything.

I'm as much a hypocrite as you are a heretic :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cry: Surely you jest? Pagans didn't find anything immoral about their practices, that was something "forced" in everyone's ears by the . . . wait for it . . . Christians!

I think you're stretching the truth here. What is moral about impaling someone on a steak, covering them in oil and lighting them on fire to light an arena where their friends and relatives are torn to pieces by lions for the entertainment of the Romans? All that over a difference in religion? And it was so offensive that many pagans came to belief in Jesus because of the dignity by which the Christians suffered.

Again we find ourselves creating the moral standard and acting as if it were the Word of god . . . oh wait, it was! :blink:

I think you and I are talking about two different things.

As for your "info" about Yeshua . . . these scriptures weren't written by the Nazarene, so you have no idea what He actually said about anything.

Oh goodness. I understand the point you're making. It's just not a very powerful point. It's a matter of trust. I trust that I'm getting the right info. You don't. Point taken. Let's move on. What about Josephus?

I'm as much a hypocrite as you are a heretic :wub:

I see you're really not going to actually give me a meaningful discussion. Are you that bored? Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.