Shouldn't Christian's Be Pacifists?

Actually, that is a gratuitous assumption. The gospel accounts are not always complete. So we have no way of knowing whether Jesus ever physically assaulted any of the money changers in the temple.

In any case, it is entirely irrelevant. See below.

Do you mean, for instance, Matthew 10:34? ("Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.")

Or perhaps Luke 12:49? ("I came to cast fire upon the earth; and what do I desire, if it is already kindled?")

Or Luke 12:21? ("And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death.")

Or even Luke 22:35-36? ("And [Jesus] said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.")

From Ask.com:

 

well put.

it's an unseemly and undignified ride, this 'mental masturbation' gig. like walking around in public with their bits out, the better to have a fiddle when the mood takes 'em. when Christians start a fiddle session in earshot, I often want to shout "get a room".

 

Do you really think these verses are about Jesus promoting violence? Honestly?
You even leave out Luke 22:37-38 which shows how it is simply a figure of speech, not a call to arms.
Ask.com is anyone answering anything. It holds no weight, and this example provides no support for the statement, but simply restates what others have said with no support.
No wonder you believe what you believe.

 

Yes.

They need be like the Westboro Church people who do exactly what Rev Martin Luther King did,... disturb society until the cry against sexual promiscuity and its teachings to the young people is stopped.

 

King demonstrated against bigotry.
Phelps demonstrated for it.
Equating the two is obscene.

 

Well, here is what is said in those two verses (from the New International Version):

How you have concluded from this that it all must be, well, just "a figure of speech," is utterly beyond me...

Actually, I had long ago learned that the better translation of this portion of the Decalogue is, "You shall not murder." But you inquired as to a source for that belief, and I gave you one.

But let me try an entirely different source:

Here is the link to the entire article on the subject: http://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html

 

If religion claimed to be the moral center of the world, and took this kind of stand against all the evils in the world- local and foreign- than they would probably be standing for a very long time...by I would have immeasurable respect for them. But religion claims these things and acts, generally, counter to them. One of my greatest criticims is when I see them actually use the religion to promote the very opposite of love and goodwill. People don't remember that the Church, regardless of what it trumpets today, was the facilitator and initator of many, many crimes in the distant and recent past. For instance, they claim to be, at least, sorta neutral about Gay people while in the not-too-distant past, they would have considered them an abomination beneath consideration. You soon realize that the world is the way it is because people can accept and subscribe to these hideous types of institutions.

 

Obviously the former verses were not a call to arms and were a figure of speech, as two swords would not be enough to either force an insurrection nor provide enough for defense of the band of 13. Why does Christ say they are enough? Because, like yourself, the apostles are too dense to understand what he is really talking about. Their minds go directly to the thoughts of simple men, of fighting and bloodshed and conflict instead of the more transcendent ideas he is failing to convey to the simpletons. He still lands on deaf ears.
You are right. It is beyond you.
Even your citation admits the word used in the Commandments means more than just murder. It is more comprehensive than that.

 

Shouldn't atheists be more trustworthy than rapists?

 

I don't know.
I recently saw a study cited on a thread here that showed believers are ignorant and prejudiced in their attitudes toward atheists.
You should read it. Very eye-opening.
It never states anything about how trustworthy they actually ARE, but rather how believers perceive them.

 

I don't judge Religion on what church people do or do not do.

I depend upon the scriptures.
They are totally opposed to sexual Promiscuity in general, and specify that Gayness out in the open and explicit is as evil as Harlots with short skirts teasing men into submission to their sexual invitations.

 

?
They BOTH violated the laws in gatherings which were seen as terrible by their enemies.
Prophets always use such means to get attention, because they are always a voice in the wilderness that no one hears nor publishes.


Jesus did the same thing inside the Temple, when he turned the tables of the merchants upside down.
Phelps amazed in places which would get his objections to Gayness some press, exactly the same way the early Gay Movement began with ACT-OUT meetings inside public buildings.

Phelps is saying that church people now seem to believe against the Bible, and have retracted from the fight.

 

Shouldn't atheist regimes not have slaughtered so many people in the past century?

 

King ALWAYS secured the necessary permits for his protests.
Your equation is an abortion.

 

Atheist regimes have demonstrated the same behaviors as did the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisition.

As a Theocracy, the Roman Catholic Church was enforcing its position as the head of State, just the same way other fascists and even Democracies will do if tyranny grows up before them.
People tend to complain about the Roman Church because the Protestants finally won out.
But, the Protestants will evict any member today who preaches a different line of interpretation inside their own churches and they reject the Mormons and/or the Jehovah Witnesses, even now.

 

I believe he did so in the end, but his people, who first stood up in the buses did not.
Sitting at the lunch counters, of course, preceded the large rallies he had to get permits for in the end.

Nevertheless, Phelps broke no laws but merely got the News attention he needed for his attack on organized Religion which the Left has painted into corner while raging for Gay marriage as if it is all safe and protected behavior.

 

To believe in one religion is to, by nature, judge all others. Since there is only one truth, and you believe your faith to be the truthful one, than you must believe that all others are false and this most basic fact will manifest in how you interact with other ideas.

Actually, you should try reading the earlier forms of these religions. You read the modern versions. All revisions are rebooted- kind of like the comics of today. Before, sex was not as evil or immoral as it is in todays religious versions. Pedophilia was common as well (at least among the wealthy and powerful, of whom records always exist), but I would say that was more a mark of the times that religion always dutifully ingests and supports.

Still...do you remember what Abraham had his wife do upon coming into Egypt and meeting the Pharoah? Would you support that action?

But, lastly, the Bible is opposed to many things. For one, worldy vices is something that is a re-occuring theme in the Bible, but I doubt you will cash in your television or computer. (yes, I'm sure they are tools, but I think it's safe to assume that for the majority of the time, they are vices, as well as a great many other things in our societies)

 

King had his own sexual promiscuity problems, unfortunately.

- - - Updated - - -

And you believe your worldview to be true, I assume.

What the Bible describes it doesn't always prescribe.

They are tools, to be used in moderation. The internet is one of the greatest tools for the spread of the Gospel ever. Many Muslims, for instance, are coming to Christ because of it.

 

the twin vices of consumerism and laziness are two BIGGIES that have been conveniently overlooked in modern times. they try to distract us (and themselves) with all that righteous indignation about improper hair cuts and the like, but we're onto 'em

 

That's not a world-view. That's logic, plain and simple. If one person believes water is a mark of the devil, and another believes it is proper to bathe, bu each one "respects" the others ideas, how can the two live together and not effect each other. Especially when we are not talking about two people but whole socieities that must live next to and among one another? Aside from that, merely believing one way means you believe the other to be fundamentally false and there is no way this will not effect your interaction or relationship with the person.

This sounds awfully like "do as I say, not as I do", which is, not to offend too much, retarded.

You don't follow a religion in moderation. You either follow it completely or you don't. Cherry-picking means you are not so much as following it as much as your own desires or convictions. You simply adopt those principles from the religion you feel are compatible, and drop that which is inconvenient. I cannot be a person who supports liberty, yet owns slaves, or buys products made from slaves. That would be ideological cherry-picking for personal convenience.

However, there still is the centric notion that your religion is, indeed, the better one. To praise conversion as a praiseworthy thing means you don't see other peoples ideas as equal to your own. They can't be, or you wouldn't make a distinction between them. I could ask you why a person switching from Islam to Christianity is a good thing versus Christianity to Islam, and I doubt your answer would be one of mutual respect and ideological equivalence.

The entire modern society, on so many levels, would be utterly fire bombed as thoroughly or more than Sodom and Gomorrah if the Bible's view of things can be believed. Especially Chrisitanity. God never had any pact with Christians, it was Hebrews of North Africa who moved into the Levant- as far as the scripture goes. (ever notice how similar the ancient Hebrew names are to anceint Egyptians. There is a distinction, but the similarities are some linguists have pointed out, especially since the modern interpreations of the names we hear in the Bible are not how they were pronounced thousands of years ago) To him, Christianity would be a gross peversion or usurper of the true pact he made.

 

In your opinion.

Equally true of your world view.

What is retarded is pretending the "I" in your analogy equals God. Obviously, if the Bible describes foolish words from an atheist that isn't God speaking.

Unlike Muslims, I think differing religious ideas deserve equal respect, I don't think two opposing viewpoints can both be true, do you? Of course, they could both be false.

For a practical reason they are much more likely to become peaceful when they convert from Islam to my faith rather than the other way around. Eternally speaking they would have gained eternal life.

And to "him", Jesus Christ would say the same thing He said to the very religious Jew Nicodemus (not to mention Saul of Tarsus), "You MUST be born again."

 

So you agree with the silly statement that having a TV and computer are 'worldly vices'? Why is complaining about hair?

 

This reply makes no sense. What is my world view?

By "I" I didn't mean "God"...he doesn't exist. I meant "you", speaking for God. There is an abundance of people with their opinions of who, what, or why God is and what he wants or means.

Can you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote...?

What makes you so sure? What proof can you offer a Muslim that he will have gained eternal life other than another holy book and a bunch of people with their own testimonials- both of which can be and is offered by Islam? If you are going to point to earthly conditions, you have already failed.

You are not God, nor Jesus. You cannot speak for or testify as to what either of them would or wouldn't have done today or in any event.

 

Anti-Christian atheist.

And some skeptics are atheists and some are agnostic. So?

No contradiction there.

If you're asking what proof do I have that Islam is wrong I would start with the abundant historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross, contrary to the Koran.

Never said I was God, I do know what He would do based on His life story given to us in the Gospel accounts. He would say the same thing to you today.

 

I'll take that. I don't agree with religion at all. It's institutionalized stupidity and deceit.

What are you saying here?

Yes, there is. You say you are accepting and/or respectful of other peoples beliefs in the same sentence you belittle Muslim's.

I doubt you've read enough of the Koran to make an adequate comparrison, but even so, I meant provide proof that your religion is true. There is no abundance of evidence. There is not one holy icon from any religion that is rcognized as validating the Scriptures, nor are they considered holy except to those who simply believe they are.

If he wanted to say something to me, he would have said it by now, right. He hasn't said anything yet, which means you speaking to me for him is just your opinion of what you think he would do or say based on opinion of who or what he is, which is based on your opinion that he actually exists in the first place. You're pushing you opinions as facts because there are no facts to push.

I wonder why religious people bury themselves under all this fantasy? It'd be one thing to simply believe that there may be something akin to a God in creation, but to start peddling these obviously false details about who he is, what he is, why he is, and what he wants...why go through the labor of holding up the pretense?