The Political Thread - Browncoat edition... down with the Alliance!

[Pidesco]

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

 

 

And what about all that '"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Really not fit that much

[Pidesco]

I don't remember anything about Jesus attacking anybody with a whip, though if it was a politician, it'd have to have been a low level one that Rome didn't give a damn about.

 

The only time I know of that Jesus used violence is when he kicked out the merchants from the temple square with... his fists? I don't think it says how, just that he kicked them out.

 

Well, tables were flipped and he had a whip on him. I don't think I've ever seen specified who he whipped.

[Pidesco]

 

 

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

 

 

And what about all that '"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Really not fit that much

 

 

That is kind of contentious in interpretation but, do you mean separating church and state and putting the law of God above the law of man doesn't fit with communism?

[smjjames]

I think you mean 'putting the law of man above the law of god', unless it comes to spiritual matters (cue arguments over marriage, reproductive rights, etc).

 

Also, the ancedote about Caesar is really just a contemporary statement about sticking Romes stuff to Rome.

Edited February 18, 2019 by smjjames

[SonicMage117]

I don't remember anything about Jesus attacking anybody with a whip, though if it was a politician, it'd have to have been a low level one that Rome didn't give a damn about.

 

The only time I know of that Jesus used violence is when he kicked out the merchants from the temple square with... his fists? I don't think it says how, just that he kicked them out.

If the meme is being serious, one can only assume that the creator was reading out of a cultic Bible, one if those Bibles which are somehow edited by a modern author that changes some things. Since there are quite a few of these, there's no way of knowing what brand of kool-aid.

[Pidesco]

 

I don't remember anything about Jesus attacking anybody with a whip, though if it was a politician, it'd have to have been a low level one that Rome didn't give a damn about.

 

The only time I know of that Jesus used violence is when he kicked out the merchants from the temple square with... his fists? I don't think it says how, just that he kicked them out.

If the meme is being serious, one can only assume that the creator was reading out of a cultic Bible, one if those Bibles which are somehow edited by a modern author that changes some things. Since there are quite a few of these, there's no way of knowing what brand of kool-aid.

 

 

According to John, Jesus used a whip in the cleansing of the temple. The word politician is weird though.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

 

 

And what about all that '"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Really not fit that much

 

 

That is kind of contentious in interpretation but, do you mean separating church and state and putting the law of God above the law of man doesn't fit with communism?

 

 

I dont think its about separation of church at all, as at that time there was no church to talk about. And Rome at that time was senate ruled republic (well, kinda ) in sea of feudal kingdoms.

 

I am pretty sure that commies called religion 'opium of humanity' so that really does not click either, I can see why people would kinda see him as socialist but I am not sure if he ever talked about 'politics' or how society should be structured, only on personal level

Edited February 18, 2019 by Chilloutman

[Pidesco]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

 

 

And what about all that '"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Really not fit that much

 

 

That is kind of contentious in interpretation but, do you mean separating church and state and putting the law of God above the law of man doesn't fit with communism?

 

 

I dont think its about separation of church at all, as at that time there was no church to talk about. And Rome at that time was senate ruled republic (well, kinda ) in sea of feudal kingdoms.

 

I am pretty sure that commies called religion 'opium of humanity' so that really does not click either, I can see why people would kinda see him as socialist but I am not sure if he ever talked about 'politics' or how society should be structured, only on personal level

 

 

Yes that's what I meant when I said I thought marxist rejection of religion was a "marketing" failure.

 

If we're going to take that tack regarding what Jesus thought at the time, in my opinion it's pretty clear that he was just being a smartass and rules lawyering around the question, which was basically a thinly veiled attempt at entrapment.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why people assume Jesus was anarchist? Is it supported by anything?

 

People assume that?

 

 

seen some stuff like that, I mean I seen a lot of them saying he was comunist or socialist, seen few about anarchist as well

 

 

Well, the notion that he was any of those things is dumb, of course. What one can say, though, is that Jesus' morals, as set out in the gospels, fit quite nicely with communist and socialist ideals.

 

The largely American phenomenon where capitalism is morally attached at the hip to Christianity is, obviously, patently ridiculous. This is nothing new, though. Supply side Jesus was a great comic.

 

Personally, I've always thought Marxist rejection of religion was a huge mistake, at least from a "marketing" perspective.

 

 

And what about all that '"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Really not fit that much

 

 

That is kind of contentious in interpretation but, do you mean separating church and state and putting the law of God above the law of man doesn't fit with communism?

 

 

I dont think its about separation of church at all, as at that time there was no church to talk about. And Rome at that time was senate ruled republic (well, kinda ) in sea of feudal kingdoms.

 

I am pretty sure that commies called religion 'opium of humanity' so that really does not click either, I can see why people would kinda see him as socialist but I am not sure if he ever talked about 'politics' or how society should be structured, only on personal level

 

 

According to Bible Jesus and Marx's writings they both had quite similar ideas towards organized religion. Also according to Bible it was Jewish scribe and rabbis that convinced Romans that Jesus was demagogue who needed to be nailed on cross and there was clear reason for that as Jesus was against temples collecting money and putting law above reason.

 

Also Bible also tells how Jesus tells a rich man that only way he can guarantee to go in heaven is to give all his wealth to charity and follow him (Jesus), teaching that created monasteries.

[Zoraptor]

The ironic thing is that for most of the church's existence a Returning Jesus would have been labelled a dangerous heretic exactly as OG Jesus was labelled by the Jewish hierarchy of the time. It seems unlikely that a lot of the 'capitalist' stuff that the church did- selling indulgences, the fake artefact/ relic industry, huge accumulation of wealth and the various attempts and successes at gaining temporal power would have passed muster in exactly the same way Jews commercialising the temple in 32AD didn't pass muster.

 

The message supplied by Jesus directly (well, 'directly' since it's not objectively provable what he said/ did and you just have to believe M/M/L/J as much as anything else) is overtly anti capitalist as it's against conspicuous consumption and wealth accumulation. Like just about everything else that message got massaged a bit by succeeding writers such as Saul to broaden appeal.

[SonicMage117]

That's why as a Christian, we are taught to be very careful where we get our teachings and who to trust. For example, What I hate now us that we have Christian youtubers who aren't even Christians but are representing the Christian church to make a dollar and don't even teach the right thing. They'll make videos about how some celebrity is fake or someone is in the illuminate, then those Christian youtubers get exposed later for being involved in the very sin they preach against.

 

Anyone can claim "This church did this, these Christians did that" without proof and Anerican Christians are often accused of doing anything for a buck, what the non-Christian won't talk about is the good church that does things right but instead will discard them as there is actually a positive thing to say.

 

As far as the "official statement" goes though, Did Jesus drink all the wine? Were we there to see it? Would Jesus get drunk foolishly if he was to carry out a specific plan? What dies your Bible say? (Assuming people have one). Oh yes, it says "Drink in moderation".

https://www.openbible.info/topics/drinking_in_moderation

 

 

 

Most non-Christians assume that Jesus had some type of sexual relationship with Mary and that He and his disciples engaged in orgies but that actually originated from a Christian sect/cult who added on to the Christian Bible, why? You guessed it, to permit them in orgies without guilt. We see this time and time throughout the years. David Koresh did a bit of this as well, it's why when people heard his radio sermon, they viewed it as a joke.

 

 

Was Jesus really an anarchist? Would Jesus portray the opposite of what He was sent to represent? Wouldn't make much sense.

https://reluctant-messenger.com/The-Anarchist.htm

 

 

Sad, isn't it? The biggest question if all is, is Religion just some facade in a desperate attempt to control peoples' life-styles, moral choice, politics? I was playing Assassin's Creed: Odyseey and noticed how this is actually the broad theme of the game itself. The cultists twisted everything to benefit their own will. I love the game exposes it but in order to fully understand it, you'd had to have some religious background because most will think it's religion in general when it's not. It's non-religious people who use religion, they never have respevt for the religion they manipulate after all.

 

This isn't any different of why the pharisees in the Bible were using the church to make money and mass manipulation. Christianity was never designed to do this (hence why the Bible instructs not to treat Christianity as a religion but a relationship with God). Jesus stood against the pharisees and his own house of prayer because He knew it was corrupt. Sadly, there will always be people out there who try to corrupt it and damage Christianity and it's reputation further.

[injurai]

Capitalist Jesus doesn't really sound right, though.

 

That's because Supply Side Jesus is the proper nomenclature.

[Gorth]

I'm not really a Christian, but I do believe Jesus in many ways was a socialist and an anarchist. One thing to remember though, is those concepts are "new". If I had to put a label on the historical person, I would label him "rebellious". Not against Roman rule, but against Rabbi rule. He seemed against people accumulating wealth for wealth's sake and wealth hoarded was wealth wasted if it wasn't used to do do good for people. Main subject of his antagonism seemed to be the organized religion of the time though, which he had nothing but contempt for. Just my $0.25

[Guard Dog]

I'm not really a Christian, but I do believe Jesus in many ways was a socialist and an anarchist. One thing to remember though, is those concepts are "new". If I had to put a label on the historical person, I would label him "rebellious". Not against Roman rule, but against Rabbi rule. He seemed against people accumulating wealth for wealth's sake and wealth hoarded was wealth wasted if it wasn't used to do do good for people. Main subject of his antagonism seemed to be the organized religion of the time though, which he had nothing but contempt for. Just my $0.25

I would not call him a socialist in the modern sense of the word. His instructions were for us to love one another and do right by one another voluntarily. Not form a government that does so (in it's own twisted way) on our behalf with the condition that it will murder us or imprison use if we don't go along. 

[injurai]

Definitely more of an anarcho-communist, but contingent on doing so from one's own heart under the spirit of God.

[SonicMage117]

Roman Catholicism church structure was all about higher politics, control by manipulation as well as invasion of privacy through invoking law with subtle breach in privacy. We don't even fully understand it today but it wasn't until Roman law came in to play in which the church required a tax of money to Ceasar's empire through the church. Want to use the city's library? "Render unto Ceasar what is already his". Want to use the monetary for prayer or worship? Pay unto the church (which gives to Ceasar and the deacons in house for profit). It wasn't an offering of good will but rather tax-based admission through manipulation, quite different from what the American church has done today - Christian churches don't force payment but there are some who feel guilty for not giving and those are often the people who accuse the smaller churches of being all about money. Thankfully, there is no "Pay for your salvation" & "Pay for your sins" today as there was back then.

 

Was Jesus a rebel? Why yes, He was. Anarchist? (Anarchy being a state in which the person defies authority or persons in authority). Well, Jesus only served God, He did so because this is what scriptures saud to do. It's funny because we see people like Governor Herod or Pharoh Ramses in the Bible who serve their own version of god but also, contradictorally demand worship to themselves. This was a false mindset that was never meant to exist but power of course, crept in. Brethren, ask yourselves when did leadership demand worship? So then, Jesus was to restore what should have been in the first place - though I can understand how the Galileans saw it as anarchy since they were only taught ine thing from birth. Superstition and tradition has always had some weird affect on the church, we can see that. But is it really Anarchy to restore the original law just because of age/location? Precisely why Jesus say "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar" to new law but kept the old law sacred, he wasn't after changing society as a whole, only to drive politics out of the church and it worked. Though church is often still in politics today, if course.

 

Also, I should be reminded as well as all of you that Jesus never broke Roman law or underminded Roman authority. We see this when he was judged by Roman law. Pontias Pilate says: "What law has this man broken?". This,is indeed an interesting study...

https://factsandtrends.net/2018/07/13/did-jesus-break-the-law/

 

 

The law, even in it's secretly non-Catholic roots, found no fault in Jesus misleading people or as a danger in public whether to society, the church or politics because he was only there to restore order. However, the people who didn't understand, went into chaos and traded Jesus in for Barabbas. Sounds like something that would happen today lol

Edited February 19, 2019 by SonicMage117

[Gromnir]

in an unaired sixty minutes segment from the early 80s, jesus were interviewed by ed bradley. when questioned 'bout his political ideology and whether he identified with marxism or anarchists, jesus replied,

 

"well ed, my message is simple:  love God and your neighbors with all your heart. that's it. this common sense morality is the entirety of my teaching. those who find additional wisdom or foolishness in my guidance have brought their own water to the river, so to speak.  dogma beyond the message is profligate and exists only to glorify those who spread the message."

 

segment were never aired national as it were discovered almost too late that neo-nazis, sons o' the confederacy and people who bring young children with them to movies all had an adverse reaction when watching jesus via a television transmission.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 19, 2019 by Gromnir

[SonicMage117]

Jesus said: "Love God and your neighbors with all your heart. that's it. this common sense morality is the entirety of my teaching.

And I know Jesus from the Christian Bible would never say this part because it sounds arrogant and unhumble lol :

"those who find additional wisdom or foolishness in my guidance have brought their own water to the river, so to speak. dogma beyond the message is profligate and exists only to glorify those who spread the message."

Tbh, That sounds a bit more like today's feely-good Joel Olsteen type of message, if it was truly so then sadly the actor is kinda inaccurate because so much of Jesus' message is left out. The whole point of Jesus was to show the world that God sent His son to die for man, so our sins would be no more. It's easy to love God and love your neghbor but the hard part os accepting that you are a sinner, that there is a heaven and hell and that you're going to be judged for your actions. Also parables about faith and what not. Those are all crucial to Jesus' message as well.

 

I wish it were easier like the actor allegedly portrays and that "love God and your neghbor" was the only point but there wouldn't had been any need for Jesus scolding pharisees, healing the sick, flipping tables, dying on the cross and ressurecting if it were true. I mean, I get that it's simplified but the bad thing about simplifying to a non-Christian who is curious is that it beckons alot of question and misinterpretation, on the other hand going too much into it turns off people as it can get confusing to a non-believer. There's much more to it as any religion can say "Love God, love your neghbor... That's it!" That will never be the case here. It goes to show how easy media can manipulate the Christian Bible, just as any American cult seeking to either zero in on one thing and discard the rest or add to it how they see fit. It's dangerous because even if they mean bo harm, it can completely change things and mislead the people it intends to reaxh out to. Was the 60 Minutes interview an emtertainment piece?

Edited February 19, 2019 by SonicMage117

[Gorth]

I think one of the reasons "Life of Brian" is one of my all time favourite movie is, it pokes fun at organized religion. The trappings, the rituals, the lack of independent thinking... Call me a blasphemer, but I think Jesus would have loved the movie. It picks up where he left off 2000 years ago, chiding, scolding, mocking, showing the clergy up, revealing their short comings and fighting the established religion, the power structures, the abuse, the inflexibility of a rules based system.

 

Speaking of rules... I can't remember who it was originally attributed to, but I love a quote that goes somewhere along the lines of "Computers are like an Old Testament God, all rules, no mercy"

[Gromnir]

love thy neighbor shtick is ez? 

 

*chuckle*

 

history suggests otherwise.  

 

even so, is not a hard message for non-christians as most o' the major religions got variations o' the Golden Rule.  given how ubiquitous is the foundational teaching we posted earlier, should be easy to find common ground.  should be.  is the dogma which gets in the way. 

 

and is simple, but not a simplification btw

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/passage/?q=luke+10:25-28

 

multiple variations on the same can be found new and old testament. thomas jefferson, maybe you heard o' him, spent considerable effort attempting to reconstruct an uncorrupted christian bible. years o' effort.  eventual reaches conclusion jesus' doctrine is "simple and tend all towards the happiness of man."  three principles: 1) God is a perfect existence; 2) there is an afterlife; and 3) the golden rule.

 

oh, and christ had his moments o' snark.  didn't cut thomas much slack and thomas were an apostle for chrissakes.  

 

"It's easy to love God and love your neghbor."

 

knew you would provide more chuckles soon.

 

am gonna forgo further religious talk as is doomed to go nowhere useful, but we observe we agree with gorth that if one assumes jesus is a divine being, he would almost certain get a chuckle outta life of brian. if not, we fear for us all.

 

am not as confident 'bout the humor o' south park's virgin mary song.  god, like most o' us, might be a bit more sensitive 'bout his mother.

 

 

check on youtube for patent offensive lyrics, but if you laugh and then smell brimstone, don't blame Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 19, 2019 by Gromnir

[SonicMage117]

Even so, is not a hard message for non-christians as most o' the major religions got variations o' the given how ubiquitous is the foundational teaching we posted earlier, should be easy to find common ground. should be. is the dogma which gets in the way.

 

and is simple, but not a simplification btw

I beg to differ, it takes alot of years to fully understand and realize the concept of the basic Christian Bible idea really is. That's why they have colleges for this type of things. Schools with years of training. Anyone can say "It's easy, watch me Google and 1, 2, 3... Done!" But if you're talking with someone that grew up in church and in a faith-driven family, then it's going to be easily proven that it's not so. If it were that easy then there wouldn't be any need for churches or colleges on Christian theology with 3 year classes on Salvation which span from the gospels to Revelations.

multiple variations on the same can be found new and old testament. thomas jefferson, maybe you heard o' him, spent considerable effort attempting to reconstruct an uncorrupted christian bible. years o' effort.

eventual reaches conclusion jesus' doctrine is "simple and tend all towards the happiness of man." three principles: 1) God is a perfect existence; 2) there is an afterlife; and 3) the golden rule.

Yes, I am aware that Jesus said this in thr parable of the good samaritan but this isn't the only parable and this isn't the only lesson. You're zero-ing on only one thing and discarding the others, this is exactly what happens when someone DOESN'T know the Bible but wants to make one point. I mean no disrespect here.

 

And while I do agree with those 3 principles there lies a largley in-depth review into them that must be had in order to gain the whole picture.

 

For ex., You should look at these scriptures as well, Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -14:6

https://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm

And

"I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God."-Luke 12:8

 

What does all that mean? It means that there are more things here that you need to take in order to get the whole picture. Why else would he say "You need to publically announce that I, the son of God, am God in order to be saved" if all you had to do was love God and love thy neighbor. You guessed it, because that was only a piece of the teaching. It's not as simple as one would think, these are very complex if you don't know what's going on. Alot of people who can't grasp the concept of this get angry and claim that Jesus contradicted himself but that's because they aren't observant enough to see Jesus' teachings as a series, instead they grab whatever they want for a one time thing. It's common.

oh, and christ had his moments o' snark. didn't cut thomas much slack and thomas were an apostle for chrissakes.

Those weren't snark comments that Jesus threw at Thomas, you have to do more research and actually read if you want to gain real insight, Google is not helping you today, that much is clear. Thomas was a skeptic, claiming to be a believer but then doubting and misleading others, he was in danger of causing a fall in others at one point. When Jesus appeared to him, Thomas literally didn't believe anything Jesus told him until Thomas felt him. Goes to show that some people just don't get something they can't touch. There was nothing snarky about the approach that Jesus used.

 

I'm guessing you do not know that Peter denied Christ 3 times before selling him out to his enemies for sheckles, BUT he was a disciple too. Was Jesus ever snarky to him? No? No, He wasn't, if Jesus wasn't snarky towards Peter - the guy that turned him in, then why would he be to a guy that only doubted? Doesn't make much sense. I'll tell you why, Jesus knew exactly who His followers were, He even called out Peter 3 days before he did what he did. There was no bitterness there, there was no negativity or resentment, and if there was dontcha think He would have punoshed them in public to make an example? He never did.

 

Jesus bashed the pharisees and that's about it and that was only because they dishonored the house of Worship while in a high position. Very different circumstances but still no snide comments, just a righteous anger.

 

But just for the heck of it, where are these comments you are speaking of, I'm curious.

"It's easy to love God and love your neghbor."

 

*chuckle*

 

Then go on, do explain, how exactly is it hard for people to get along? Maturity should be easy for adults to obtain and give a appropriate mutual respect to one another, yes? Though in "today's" standard, I can see how politics divides these "mature" adults and causes some form of bitterness or strife.

 

Sure one could say "If everyone would love God their neighbors, then we would be peachy" in order to appear smarter and make some sarcastic but while that's an easy scapegoat, it's unrealistic, there will always be wars - people who love each other and love and fear God at the same time CAN be at war and killing each other. If you're talking about history then you should remember a little thing called The American Civil War where Christian families fought against each other seperated due to nothing but location with nothing they could do but kill or be killed? There are plenty of wars like this. And then if you're talking about things like school shootings then mental illnesses and other factors are to blame, they are people not in sound mind. For terrorists, they are religious sects that are cult-mind behaviors.

 

Yes, history repeats itself that it easy to love God and love thy neighbor but other factors make it appear as other than.

knew you would provide more chuckles soon.

As you did.

 

 

NARF!

Edited February 19, 2019 by SonicMage117

[Chilloutman]

I am not surprised you need years of study to understand book(s) written by multiple people with their own agenda and with many contradictions and probably spanning hundreds years between writers lives, it takes some skill to make sense and not consider it a mess

 

anyway, I like bible of these people, must be a fun:

 

 

any book promoting rave party on Sundays is a win

[SonicMage117]

I am not surprised you need years of study to understand book(s) written by multiple people with their own agenda and with many contradictions and probably spanning hundreds years between writers lives, it takes some skill to make sense and not consider it a mess

 

And I'd ask you to point out those contradictions and agendas (not to argue but just to know where you're coming from out of curiosity) but I think we both know you're not going to answer that and that's fine by me. As I said before, many non-Christians view things they don't understand as contradiction, displacement or something other than believable. The Bible is interesting because you may read one thing and have a question and then see an answer a thousand pages later. Edited February 19, 2019 by SonicMage117

[Pidesco]

 

I am not surprised you need years of study to understand book(s) written by multiple people with their own agenda and with many contradictions and probably spanning hundreds years between writers lives, it takes some skill to make sense and not consider it a mess

And I'd ask you to point out those contradictions and agendas (not to argue but just to know where you're coming from out of curiosity) but I think we both know you're not going to answer that and that's fine by me. As I said before, many non-Christians view things they don't understand as contradiction, displacement or something other than believable. The Bible is interesting because you may read one thing abd have a question and then see an answer a thousand pages later.

 

 

Are you kidding? The bible is filled with contractions, especially between the old testament and the new.