Dark Jedi

<Jedi puts on his Moderator's hat>

Rad,

He stated that he had to wait for his original source to reply. Once he had that info, he posted it. Toto beat him to the puch with links to the original author and his works.

If you have a problem with the info presented, address it. Let's keep the personal attacks out of the debate.

LuvLuv,
Your pust, while amusing, was uneccessarily confrontational.
Let's keep things civil and topical.

All who replied to LuvLuv: The points raised are valid, and valid replies. They are starting to lean to the dark side, though. Leat's steer back toward civil grounds, please.

Thanks, all.

<takes off Moderator's hat>

Radorth

I have far more worthwhile choices than a non-Christian. That is the whole point of Jesus' teaching, to be truly free.

You are right about the capitalism part though. The Kingdom of God resembles Communism more than Capitalism. (Well let's say "Communism that actually works" rather than just "Communism")

Rad

Radorth

Anytime.

Well good, I take it we can agree it's a metaphor since he limited them to 2 swords, and therefore he was not talking about physical "war and violence" as you wrongly stated.

Rad

Radorth

H.G. Wells, an atheist, on the motives of Jesus:


But it is not only the intense tribal patriotism of the Jews that Jesus outraged. They were a people of intense family loyalty, and he would have swept away all the narrow and restrictive family affections in the great flood of the love of God. The whole kingdom of Heaven was to be the family of his followers. We are told that, “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hands towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

They don't make atheists as insightful and open-minded as they used to, from what I read there.

You can read Wells other insights here, which so well answers what Jesus came for, it should be an embarrassment to Christians.

http://www.bartleby.com/86/37.html

Rad

Peter Kirby

Radorth quotes: "But it is not only the intense tribal patriotism of the Jews that Jesus outraged. They were a people of intense family loyalty, and he would have swept away all the narrow and restrictive family affections in the great flood of the love of God."

E. P. Sanders, among others, would object to the outmoded manner of characterizing the Jews among whom Jesus lived and was one as zealotrous, bigoted, narrow-minded jerks that serve only as a foil to Wisdom Incarnate.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

Re: Radcliffe's inventions and Toto's sites

But the site which Toto found before Radcliffe "had a chance" says something quite different:

The creditor is revealed to be not a legitimate money lender but a party to the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness, destitution, and abasement. This unmasking is not simply punitive, therefore; it offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in life, what his practices cause, and to repent. Once again you have regained your dignity by taking back your power to choose your own response, all without violence. Moreover, you have offered your oppressor an opportunity for conversion.

Radcliffe mentioned nothing about offering conversion. He said you were simply insulting the other person.

Then on the subject of cheek turning, the site says

" Thus by turning your other cheek, you have reclaimed your dignity and communicated that you refuse to be humiliated. You have also invited your master to reclaim his true dignity by examining the lie by which he lives, that one human being is better than another.

Emerson said something quite different. He said you were insulting the person. But on the site, he is getting a chance at conversion.

Er, I think maybe the skeptics are the ones mixed up tonight, and are just throwing out various theories, and tortured readings of Jesus' metaphors for overeducated Phd's to contemplate. Mars Hill comes to mind.

Apparently Wells applied Occam's Razor and had to keep everything intact except the resurrection and the Virgin Birth. He doesn't seem to have any trouble telling metaphors apart either. Why would that be?

Rad

Family Man

Swords are symbols of war and violence. The number of them in a metaphor is quite irrelevant, unless you have a different definition of what a metaphor is from the rest of the world. And since you offer no other possible explanation of what the 2 swords could be a metaphor for, I'd say it's premature for you to claim that I wrongly stated anything.

Radorth

Kirby, that is

A: Not what Wells said, nor does he say that anywhere in his piece. You are obviously second-guessing him.

B: Beside the point of "family loyalty" which this thread is much about.

Rad

Radorth

If they weren't enough to hold a war (a la Muhammed) then they could not be used for that, now could they?! So it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what he meant.

Unbelievable.

Rad

Peter Kirby

I haven't read H. G. Wells on Jesus. If my comment missed the mark, then I would be glad. It's a common enough characterization in popular thought even today, though, as it is based on the four gospels.

best,
Peter Kirby