If Jesus ran for office...

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You are opening a huge can of worms.Major Theological debate. If God wanted too he could end all War, All famine and make us believe and we would live in a utopia, it comes back to Free will. It was all to lead up to Christ. Once the world had been left on its own "Free Will" it was shown how man would try and destroy himself knowing Good and Evil, that man could not redeem himself . The Old Testament is a preface to the main body of the Story "Christ" The redeemer

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is a different debate all together, but what I was saying is that if God and/or Jesus preaches love and forgiveness then why would his followers need to take up arms at all, wouldn't it make scene that they would die for their ideals? Wouldn't the spread of peace and love be stronger than hate and violence? There are so many biblical passage referring to the wraith of God and punishment of the wicked for God to be considered the embodiment of peace and love and very little of forgiveness. God doesn't have anything to do with infringing on the free will of his followers by protecting them from harm while following his word.

It is not a different debate.You are missing the point. All the "Wrath of God" stuff is old Testament.
And if The original Israelites were told to love they neighbor they would have been consumed and be no more. Old Testament is all about War and fighting in order for the Israelites to Be in existence. It goes back to Abraham being the only one who understood and had faith in God. Abraham was from Babylon and told to leave and start the Hebrew nation. Well the surrounding tribes did not like the incursion. So there was a necessity for the violence because the World was Violent because of Sin, but God promised to protect them because they believed. There is nothing in the NEW Testament ,which is where Christ comes in Which is where "Christians" come in , that talks about wrath of God and destruction hence my saying if you claim to be Christian and "live by the sword" your not Christian. You are taking things out of context and you don't have a clear understanding of the Bible which is fine i am not faulting you for that but i cant answer your questions if you have no understanding of the context. This is why i was trying to explain things that you said had no relevance.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
It is not a different debate.You are missing the point. All the "Wrath of God" stuff is old Testament.
And if The original Israelites were told to love they neighbor they would have been consumed and be no more. Old Testament is all about War and fighting in order for the Israelites to Be in existence. It goes back to Abraham being the only one who understood and had faith in God. Abraham was from Babylon and told to leave and start the Hebrew nation. Well the surrounding tribes did not like the incursion. So there was a necessity for the violence because the World was Violent because of Sin, but God promised to protect them because they believed. There is nothing in the NEW Testament ,which is where Christ comes in Which is where "Christians" come in , that talks about wrath of God and destruction hence my saying if you claim to be Christian and "live by the sword" your not Christian. You are taking things out of context and you don't have a clear understanding of the Bible which is fine i am not faulting you for that but i cant answer your questions if you have no understanding of the context. This is why i was trying to explain things that you said had no relevance.

so God being evil is contextual, but God being good is non-contextual?

Originally posted by inimalist
so God being evil is contextual, but God being good is non-contextual?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The free will thing is a different debate. What I'm talking about is that God and Jesus are supposed to be the same person, the trinity thing. God from the old and new testament are still the same, one book is more feel good and the other is not but they are still the same god unless you are saying that either they are not the trinity or that the new testament is not talking about the god of the old testament.

Just because they're talking about the same person doesn't mean that his approach can't change. Surely you haven't been the same for your entire life. There's also the obvious fact that the message that Christ sent is meant to be different from the wrath and punishment angle of the old testament, it takes a stretch to ignore a new message just because the old one is more convenient for you.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Is that directed at me?

not really at anyone in particular

If your argument is that God does all of the good things in the bible because he is good and all of the bad things because of contextual reasons, then my statement is directed at you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just because they're talking about the same person doesn't mean that his approach can't change. Surely you haven't been the same for your entire life. There's also the obvious fact that the message that Christ sent is meant to be different from the wrath and punishment angle of the old testament, it takes a stretch to ignore a new message just because the old one is more convenient for you.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really at anyone in particular

If your argument is that God does all of the good things in the bible because he is good and all of the bad things because of contextual reasons, then my statement is directed at you.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No I'm more talking about the people that say that Jesus is the Prince of Peace and has never done or shown violent behavior, if he is a part of God or is God then he has done violent and vengeful things.

fair enough, I'm more talking about the cognitive bias to explain behaviour that is good (to the observer) as being motivated internally by a characteristic of the behaving individual, whereas bad behaviour is explained through external motivations (something made this good person do bad).

Looking for contextual reasons to explain Jesus'/God's negative behaviour necessitates one do the same for his good behaviour, yet there do not exist these tongue in cheek explanations of how God's benevolent behaviour is not contridictatory to his negative statements.

its a roundabout way of accusing people of cherry picking to reach their personal conclusions.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I'm more talking about the cognitive bias to explain behaviour that is good (to the observer) as being motivated internally by a characteristic of the behaving individual, whereas bad behaviour is explained through external motivations (something made this good person do bad).

Looking for contextual reasons to explain Jesus'/God's negative behaviour necessitates one do the same for his good behaviour, yet there do not exist these tongue in cheek explanations of how God's benevolent behaviour is not contridictatory to his negative statements.

its a roundabout way of accusing people of cherry picking to reach their personal conclusions.

lol

"cherry picked" will never mean the same thing to me again

I would not vote for him. Too much of a religious fanatic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would not vote for him. Too much of a religious fanatic.

Too libtarded!

He would be the next Obama, instead of voting for him because hes black it would have to be because hes the son of God.

Everyone wants a first these days.

Someone doesn't remember Regan.

Someone wasn't alive for Regan.

Unfortently.

At least the guy still secretly works in a toy shop.

we would have a smear campaign against him with sex tapes and or innuendo between mary magdelyne

Originally posted by Da Pittman
He would take away my porz so no vote from me 😈

😕 What is a porz?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕 What is a porz?