Where'd the idea of Jesus being a nice guy come from?

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you actually read what he preaches, he's actually a huge grabass.

Yes, he comes off as nice compared to his disciples or his dad, but the fact of the matter is that by most standards he's a tool of the first order.

I can understand why Christians want people to believe that Jesus wasn't a huge grabass, sure. But even maltheists/atheists who (rightly) believe that God is Evil pretty much swallow wholesale the meme that Jesus was a righteous dude. Which isn't true.

Fuckin' twatwaffle.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I kinda got the impression that he was less of a dick than the religious leaders of the time.

Sure, but today's standards, it's messed up. But 1st century Judea wasn't a center of enlightenment and human rights.

[Draco_Argentum]

Want to post some quotes that are actually attributed to Jesus in the gospels then? I certainly don't remember much that was outright bad other than pacifism.

[Cynic]

Want to post some quotes that are actually attributed to Jesus in the gospels then? I certainly don't remember much that was outright bad other than pacifism.

while not a pacfisit, what's wrong with pacifism?

I'll clarify that. You might think it bad as in that it doesn't mesh with your values. But how is it evil?

[Username17]

Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. (Note: this is said to his mother about why he wouldn't bother spending time with her)

O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you?

Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

He that is not with me is against me.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

And that's just the Luke version. Really, he's a big gloom and doom guy who says that anyone who isn't a flagellant will be tortured in hell for eternity. Not super good guy really.

-Username17

[Bigode]

I'll clarify that. You might think it bad as in that it doesn't mesh with your values. But how is it evil?

Isn't refraining from stop evil evil in itself? Before anyone claims self-defense's OK, fvck self-defense - the people who that counts for anything are cowards, narrow-minded, or egoist (I have no problem with the last when people actually admit it, but one wouldn't do so while quoting JC).

[Lago PARANOIA]

Jesus isn't a pacifist.

Where the fuck did THAT idea come from, too?

He outright said that he's not here to make peace, but to put people to the sword.

There definitely has not been enough effort made into tearing down the reputation of this idiot.

[Talisman]

Like most of the Bible, Jesus is highly self-contradictory. There are verses that show Jesus as a peace-and-love hippie type:

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[14]

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luke 6:36-38 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

...And others that show him as an intolerant, warmongering zealot (see Frank's quotations).

This section of God vs the Bible has a nice listing.

To me, the only was Jesus as a real person makes any sense is if one considers him to be a nice guy give the time and place. And that's if you consider him a human who, for whatever reason, founded a weird cult.

[Cynic]

I'll clarify that. You might think it bad as in that it doesn't mesh with your values. But how is it evil?

Isn't refraining from stop evil evil in itself? Before anyone claims self-defense's OK, fvck self-defense - the people who that counts for anything are cowards, narrow-minded, or egoist (I have no problem with the last when people actually admit it, but one wouldn't do so while quoting JC).

What the fuck does not hitting someone in the face have anything to do with not stopping evil?
~

Seriously.

That's the most western outlook I've ever seen in my life.

Again, I'm not a pacifist, but see what Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK did.

yes, two of the three got assasinated but they still did a lot.

yes, Gandhi was a jackass as well. But that comes with ego.

Jainists are pacifists in so much as in orthodox Jains will carry a broom to sweep the ground in front of them so as not to hurt the insect when they walk. A little silly because the broom could hurt the insect.

Going back to jesus.

His action of shoving down the money-lenders stall rather than punching the money lender is pacifism. It's stretching it A LOT. But I'll call it pacifism for this argument. Why, because he didn't break noses. Yes, jesus is a contradictory mofo. We all know this.

In fact, the den goes through this cycle where we pick a topic and then we make like a thousand topics on that topic and just keep on ragging on it. Currently it's bibble/religion hate.

[Talisman]

In fact, the den goes through this cycle where we pick a topic and then we make like a thousand topics on that topic and just keep on ragging on it.

It's part of our charm

Currently it's bibble/religion hate.

I'm sure that was a typo, but I like how it calls the word "babble" to mind.

Henceforth, I shall refer to it as the Holey Bibble.

[Cynic]

It's part of our charm :mrgreen:



I'm sure that was a typo, but I like how it calls the word "babble" to mind.

Henceforth, I shall refer to it as the Holey Bibble.

(laughs) Actually, I didn't even realize I had done it. It was an old college joke between friends where we called it the Holey bibble with Sadin and Jebus.

[Bigode]

To me, the only was Jesus as a real person makes any sense is if one considers him to be a nice guy give the time and place. And that's if you consider him a human who, for whatever reason, founded a weird cult.

There are at least 2 other possible explanations: a) it was actually more than one person; b) it's 2 badly-made forgeries, with the first kept "because it might be useful".

Cynic: maybe, just maybe, stabbing people about to do evil in the face somewhat previously, instead of, say, waiting for much riskier situations involving would-be victims? Western? I don't think you're actually insulting me by saying I was raised in the Western hemisphere (which I was), so let's assume "America's Old West": I know little enough about it to think that some of the gunslingers you'd be referring to did some pretty OK stuff; and it's also little enough for me to be completely unable to supply names ...

[Cynic]

To me, the only was Jesus as a real person makes any sense is if one considers him to be a nice guy give the time and place. And that's if you consider him a human who, for whatever reason, founded a weird cult.

There are at least 2 other possible explanations: a) it was actually more than one person; b) it's 2 badly-made forgeries, with the first kept "because it might be useful".

Cynic: maybe, just maybe, stabbing people about to do evil in the face somewhat previously, instead of, say, waiting for much riskier situations involving would-be victims? Western? I don't think you're actually insulting me by saying I was raised in the Western hemisphere (which I was), so let's assume "America's Old West": I know little enough about it to think that some of the gunslingers you'd be referring to did some pretty OK stuff; and it's also little enough for me to be completely unable to supply names ...

in a way, I suppose, it's an insult because I refer to American/European culture. I grew up in India and sometimes certain concepts of American/European culture are downright alien to me.

Fuck if this gets me labeled a pacfist but I like playing a devil's advocate.

There are ways to do things instead of pre-emptive stabbage.

Is it better that the man dies or that you teach him that what he did was wrong and bring him out to maybe do better things in society? Is it better to create a force for non-violence that causes people to think or is it better to have a lynch mob that causes people to turn their faces away?

Crazy complex questions that only have grey answers to me. But some people will give it black and white answers. Kill the fvcker before he kills someone else. A life for a life. force is the only way. peace is the only way. You can break a stick but you can't break a bundle of sticks. Bullshit like that.

[Username17]

Pacifism is a tactic. It is sometimes the best tactic. And like all tactics it fades from possibility if it does not have proponents.

Society as a whole is stronger if there are some people in it who refuse to fight for it.

-Username17

[Cynic]

Pacifism is a tactic. It is sometimes the best tactic. And like all tactics it fades from possibility if it does not have proponents.

Society as a whole is stronger if there are some people in it who refuse to fight for it.

-Username17

But why does pacifism have anything to do with refusing to fighting for something?

Pacifism also has to do with non-violence.

There are ways to get things done without getting hte gun out or diplomacy.

Non-violent protests, marches, non-violent strikes, non-cooperation. All this is pacifism.

That is what I, in disgust, called the "western outlook." Saying that pacifism is only defining it as not fighting for something.

You can still fight for your rights to party without partying.

ya dig?

[Bigode]

in a way, I suppose, it's an insult because I refer to American/European culture. I grew up in India and sometimes certain concepts of American/European culture are downright alien to me.

While I recall hearing even that you were expected to be a priest or somesuch, you seem to live in the U.S.A., so I overestimated your familiarity with the West.

Fuck if this gets me labeled a pacfist but I like playing a devil's advocate.

I can't speak for others, especially with the latest developments elsewhere, but I, at least, am able to read and can see "I'm not a pacifist" written. And I play devil's advocate when I can, and say "fvck it" as well when people think those were my views, so you're welcome.

There are ways to do things instead of pre-emptive stabbage.
Is it better that the man dies or that you teach him that what he did was wrong and bring him out to maybe do better things in society? Is it better to create a force for non-violence that causes people to think or is it better to have a lynch mob that causes people to turn their faces away?

Crazy complex questions that only have grey answers to me. (...)

Sure they're crazy complex, I'm not implying otherwise. I insult pacifists as (some of) the people who don't acknowledge that. So, it seems the phrase "violent agreement" gets even more hilarious given the topic at hand.

Pacifism is a tactic. It is sometimes the best tactic. And like all tactics it fades from possibility if it does not have proponents.

Society as a whole is stronger if there are some people in it who refuse to fight for it.

I probably got biased by the hypocrisy commonly found in pacifism (people who would want to kill others have no problem admitting they don't do so merely outta fear, which's at least honest), since ... when was the last time someone was found refusing to fight for oneself? But fair enough. That said, are you going to use the same defense for an hypothetical opposite of pacifism (which might look like "force's always the answer")? Not that I would - but I'm not sure I'd do it even for pacifism itself ...

[Lago PARANOIA]

I probably got biased by the hypocrisy commonly found in pacifism (people who would want to kill others have no problem admitting they don't do so merely outta fear, which's at least honest), since ... when was the last time someone was found refusing to fight for oneself? But fair enough. That said, are you going to use the same defense for an hypothetical opposite of pacifism (which might look like "force's always the answer")? Not that I would - but I'm not sure I'd do it even for pacifism itself ...

The goal is eventually to make it such that pacifism is actually the superior option.

We may never actually have to use pacifism, but as long as it's in our toolbox it makes the other extreme options less, well, necessary. And the funny thing about it is that every time it gets used successfully, the stronger a weapon it becomes.

The whole MLK civil rights movements? That would not have happened during the nadir of race relations in the US and if it did, it would've been a lot bloodier. We needed a combination of improving prosperity, social awareness, and communications before it stood a chance.

Some evil shit went down towards tearing down apartheid. But if the world and the powers that be didn't already see how strong of a tool it could be it could've been even nastier.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Jesus isn't a pacifist.

Where the fuck did THAT idea come from, too?

He outright said that he's not here to make peace, but to put people to the sword.

There definitely has not been enough effort made into tearing down the reputation of this idiot.

Wow. What translation of the Bible are you reading? The actual quotation was "I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). The sword he's referring to is most likely metaphorical, since Jesus is never depicted with a sword while he's alive. I.e, it refers to the fact that Jesus' ideas are going to be controversial and upset the powerful.

But yeah, people who believe every word of the Bible was literally dictated by God have a lot to explain. Most scholars believe that the authors of the Gospels drew heavily on various books of the "sayings of Jesus" of varying degrees of authenticity, picking and choosing and putting their own spins on the quotations.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The New Jerusalem Bible, the same as the Brick Testament.

The King James Bible, incidentally, uses much the same phraseology.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

As far as pacifism goes, there's a time and a place for everything.

I don't ALWAYS use a certain tactic in my life. For example, if I am having a disagreement with my supervisor, I could resolve things peacefully, or I could just headbutt him and move on. One is easier, but the other is more likely to result on me not going to jail.

Likewise, if some dude jumps out of a locker and starts punching me in the head, it's probably wise to assume that I won't be able to talk myself out of that one. (I use that as an example because I don't often run into situations as an adult where violence is the answer. But it happened in school all the time.)

[Cynic]

While I recall hearing even that you were expected to be a priest or somesuch, you seem to live in the U.S.A., so I overestimated your familiarity with the West.

Being familiar and being used to it is two different stories.

NO I wasn't expected to be a priest. I'm of the brahmin class who are able to become priests. Vaguely speaking of hinduism, yesterday was the one holiday in hinduism that respect greatly. The festival of knowledge. So I shall celeberate it today instead. Tangent aside.

Here's another tangent. IN INdia, the sun sets around 6pm most of the time. In America, I see the sun around 7P and 8P a lot of the time. I came to the States when I was 12, a good 13 years ago, and I still can't get used to seeing the sun up at 7 or 8P at night. It's that sort of thing. Being around something and being used to something are two completely different things.

I still hold on to some what's that quaint word -- occidental -- values. I suppose that can refer to Indian values as well as Oriental values.

I can't speak for others, especially with the latest developments elsewhere, but I, at least, am able to read and can see "I'm not a pacifist" written. And I play devil's advocate when I can, and say "fvck it" as well when people think those were my views, so you're welcome.

Thank you.

There are ways to do things instead of pre-emptive stabbage.
Is it better that the man dies or that you teach him that what he did was wrong and bring him out to maybe do better things in society? Is it better to create a force for non-violence that causes people to think or is it better to have a lynch mob that causes people to turn their faces away?

Crazy complex questions that only have grey answers to me. (...)

Sure they're crazy complex, I'm not implying otherwise. I insult pacifists as (some of) the people who don't acknowledge that. So, it seems the phrase "violent agreement" gets even more hilarious given the topic at hand.
I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "violent agreement" -- ahm sorry -- Ahm from Texas -- my english ain't so guhd -- (cough) ---

I probably got biased by the hypocrisy commonly found in pacifism (people who would want to kill others have no problem admitting they don't do so merely outta fear, which's at least honest), since ... when was the last time someone was found refusing to fight for oneself? But fair enough. That said, are you going to use the same defense for an hypothetical opposite of pacifism (which might look like "force's always the answer")? Not that I would - but I'm not sure I'd do it even for pacifism itself ...

We seem to be arguing about two different words aren't we.

I look at pacifism and see non-violence and it's power and uses.

you see pacifism and see cowards and their inability to do anything.

So are we going to be able to reconcile this or not?

[Bigode]

I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "violent agreement" -- ahm sorry -- Ahm from Texas -- my english ain't so guhd -- (cough) ---

First, you might wanna fix that quote - but it's not one of the thread-devouring kind. Second, it seems people have liked to be ironic about "heartily agreeing" by saying they "are in violent agreement", and that'd been recently said around here in some other topic - I can only suppose the irony gets better when talking about pacifism.

We seem to be arguing about two different words aren't we.

I look at pacifism and see non-violence and it's power and uses.

you see pacifism and see cowards and their inability to do anything.

I don't see cowards; I don't think actual pacifism equals cowardice (in fact, it certainly requires its own brand of courage). What I actually see most of the time's hypocrisy, with some of it incidentally coming from cowards. The actual objection I have's that what one might call pacifism done sincerely's still an oversimplification.

So are we going to be able to reconcile this or not?

Given that I agreed on the complexity of the question, it might be that we both disagree with pacifists (at least the simplistic brand, if there's some other) instead of with each other. However, it's possible that having some share of actual (simplistic and all) pacifists around might be good - I'm far from completely convinced, though.

[Talisman]

We seem to be arguing about two different words aren't we.

I look at pacifism and see non-violence and it's power and uses.

you see pacifism and see cowards and their inability to do anything.

So are we going to be able to reconcile this or not?

Pacifists, like most people with strong opinions, run the gamut from sane to raving nutjobs. It goes from "Let's not fight unless we absolutely have to" to "Never inconvenience another, even if he's beating your mother to death with your dog!!1!"

It's no different from other non-majority views. Vegetarians run from guys who'll squirt ketchup on you for eating a burger and people who don't care what you eat, as long as you don't make them eat meat. Feminists run from rabid man-hating psychos to people who think women should have the same opportunities as men.

As for me, I don't consider myself a pacifist, but I do consider myself nonviolent. I've neve been in a physical fight, and I think violence should be the last club out of the bag. However, I do consider it a valid option, and I would not hesitate to inflict it on someone who was threatening me or mine.

Oh, and never let it be said that pacifists can't accomplish anything...see Ghandi's "passive resistance."

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The New Jerusalem Bible, the same as the Brick Testament.

The King James Bible, incidentally, uses much the same phraseology.

Really?

Matthew 10:34, King James Version[/url]]Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Still nothing about "putting people to the sword."

[Bigode]

As for me, I don't consider myself a pacifist, but I do consider myself nonviolent. I've neve been in a physical fight, and I think violence should be the last club out of the bag. However, I do consider it a valid option, and I would not hesitate to inflict it on someone who was threatening me or mine.

Let me see: you work on construction, never had a brawl even in school, and live surrounded by weapons. Why do I think something's off?