Here you go you dumbs$%&#@

[Gasser64]

So your reference is a painting, with him holding what appears to be a rope only fit to tie things with. Got anything better? I'm open to proof, but it does need to be good proof.

[YALE]

So your reference is a painting, with him holding what appears to be a rope only fit to tie things with. Got anything better? I'm open to proof, but it does need to be good proof.

Matthew 21:12 & John 2:15.

[YALE]

The incident described was in all four gospels.

[Strychnine]

So your reference is a painting, with him holding what appears to be a rope only fit to tie things with. Got anything better? I'm open to proof, but it does need to be good proof.

You're confident enough to pick a side and start a religious thread guaranteed to generate shit talking, but you don't known the story of Jesus clearing the temple?

To each his own, but I think you might be out of your element on this one, Donny.

[Sean88gt]

Thought this was an epic rap battle.

[Strychnine]

The incident described was in all four gospels.

Re: violence

First, we need to understand that Jesus wasn’t throwing an uncontrolled tantrum. Most scholars agree that this was a calculated prophetic, symbolic act on Jesus’ part. Based on Old Testament prophecy as well as the widespread knowledge of the corrupt priestly system, most Jews of Jesus’ day believed the coming Messiah was going to restore the temple and make it God’s house once again. By cleansing the temple, therefore, Jesus was demonstrating that he was the Messiah. He was also symbolically revealing Yahweh’s displeasure with the religious establishment of his day and symbolically acting out Yahweh’s reclaiming of his house.

It seems the masses understood the symbolism of Jesus’ actions. While his behavior enraged the religious leaders, the people responded by flocking to him (Mark 11:18).

Second, and closely related to this, most scholars agree that Jesus engaged in this aggressive behavior to force the hand of religious and political authorities against him. After all, he had come to Jerusalem with the expressed intention of being executed. Up to this point the Jewish authorities were concerned about Jesus, but they refrain from acting on their concern because of Jesus’ popularity with the crowds. By exposing their corruption, Jesus was now explicitly threatening their authority. And this forced them to start plotting his arrest and execution.

So, we again see that Jesus’ temple cleansing wasn’t a spontaneous outburst of anger. It was a premeditated, strategic act.

Third, and most importantly, while Jesus’ behavior was certainly aggressive, there’s no indication whatsoever that it involved violence. True, Jesus turned tables over. But this was to put an immediate stop to the corrupt commerce that was taking place as well as perhaps to free the caged animals. There’s no mention of any person or animal getting hurt in the process.

And yes, Jesus made a whip. But there’s no mention of him using it to strike any animal, let alone human. Cracking a loud whip has always been the most effective means of controlling the movement of large groups of animals. Jesus wanted to create a stampede of animals out of the temple, and there’s no reason to conclude he used the whip for any other purpose than this.

When we read this passage in context, we can see that, while Jesus was aggressive when he drove out the animals, we cannot use this passage as justification for violence.

[Forever_frost]

So Jesus wouldn't hurt a fly? Jesus was a violent socialist. At least Muhammed was straight up about getting his money, power, and hoes in this world.

Christ walked into his father's house and looked around and saw it being used as a market. Outraged, he sat down and made a whip and drove everyone out. He didn't injure for giggles, he removed thieves from his father's house. I can think of no one who wouldn't do the same.

Does not make him violent.

[likeitfast55]

Statistics aren’t even needed to show that religious belief is waning and becoming less widespread:
that much is clear from the attitudes of people in many social contexts. People once commonly
subscribed to the Christian churches and the role of the believer was one of some reverence, today
it has fallen significantly to one of ridicule. The religious believer is today viewed as irrational,
outdated or even just plain “uncool” – religious belief is particularly diminishing amongst the youth
population of the UK (a British Social Attitudes Poll demonstrated that two thirds of 18-24 year
olds proclaim themselves as having “no religious affiliation” compared to a quarter of pensioners).
One can simply look up and down any central high street in the months before Christmas to see
evidence of how we feel we simply no longer need religion to enjoy the holidays: the festival once
pivotal to Christian faith has been transformed into what Don Cupitt described as “the
Disneyfication of Christianity”

Only 4 out of 10 of children know that Christmas was originally the
festival celebrating the birth of Christ. The religious significance of this festival has largely
disappeared in British culture, to be replaced by our new obsession with commercialism. Britain
feels, perhaps, that it has outgrown the religious roots of these festivals, revelling instead in the
modern day commerce and “disneyfication” of the holiday.
The lack of interest in religion coincides with the rise of scepticism over the last few hundred years:
people began to look at the world differently and question ideas they’d always just been told to.

[YALE]

Christ walked into his father's house and looked around and saw it being used as a market. Outraged, he sat down and made a whip and drove everyone out. He didn't injure for giggles, he removed thieves from his father's house. I can think of no one who wouldn't do the same.

Does not make him violent.

Sure it does. It makes him justifiably violent.

[likeitfast55]

It is my contention that we are now ready, as a species, to move on from such beliefs. The net value of religion to society is now negative. If you believe that ontogenesis parallels phylogenesis, then you might say that religion traps us in our pre-adolescence. The characteristic of adolescence is learning to question, to establish independent views, and to assume responsibility for one's moral judgements. By analogy, it is time for our species to do the same.

[YALE]

It is my contention that we are now ready, as a species, to move on from such beliefs. The net value of religion to society is now negative. If you believe that ontogenesis parallels phylogenesis, then you might say that religion traps us in our pre-adolescence. The characteristic of adolescence is learning to question, to establish independent views, and to assume responsibility for one's moral judgements. By analogy, it is time for our species to do the same.

Richard Dawkins made an excellent analogy to religion as failed science.

[likeitfast55]

As an Agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of any god. I have read his work " The God Delusion"

[Ruffdaddy]

Since when did Yale become an Obama supporting Isis sponsor?!

Thread posted about how much more violent islam is, and this guy goes straight to the Obama rhetoric stretching how violent Christ was...surprising.

On a serious note, I wouldn't call either worthless because they do help some people and accomplish goals. But the point of the OPs post is that one religion insights more violence. But of course its more fun to look past that point and bash the only religion that is cool to bash by american atheists.

[Gasser64]

The incident described was in all four gospels.

So whipping a few people with some cords, once. Vs a lifetime of murder and torture? I'm afraid you're going to have to do WAAAAAAY better than that. So much so that I find it a little odd that you'd even bother to bring it up. Got anything else? Again, I'm completely open to proof contrary to my assertions.

And Walter, of course I'm out of my element. I specifically said, in the OP, that I'm not religious. As such, it should be very easy to conclude that I don't know all of the original canon. -Donny

Since when did Yale become an Obama supporting Isis sponsor?!

Thread posted about how much more violent islam is, and this guy goes straight to the Obama rhetoric stretching how violent Christ was...surprising.

On a serious note, I wouldn't call either worthless because they do help some people and accomplish goals. But the point of the OPs post is that one religion insights more violence. But of course its more fun to look past that point and bash the only religion that is cool to bash by american atheists.

I don't know if I'd call it surprising. I generally like Yale, but he leans left. This is a standard position of the left and something you'll often hear them parroting. Well known by all who observe them.

[Mongoose]

Since when did Yale become an Obama supporting Isis sponsor?!

Thread posted about how much more violent islam is, and this guy goes straight to the Obama rhetoric stretching how violent Christ was...surprising.

On a serious note, I wouldn't call either worthless because they do help some people and accomplish goals. But the point of the OPs post is that one religion insights more violence. But of course its more fun to look past that point and bash the only religion that is cool to bash by american atheists.

As an American Atheist I`d beg to differ with your comment and the OP`s view that Islam is historically more violent than Christianity.

First of all, we dont "bash" religions... ANY of them. We simply state we wish no part of it, and those that refuse to listen. We then refute them. Muslims arent the ones starting shit with us, it`s the evangelical righties that think since we dont accept Jesus Christ as out Lord and Saviour that we Atheists are somehow "attacking them", and then they go into their act of playing the victim. If they would simply leave us alone -- We`d all get along in peace. However, I dont EVER see them doing that because playing the victim all the time is a rather profitable business model for them.

From a modern Western perspective, I can see why someone would claim Islam was a more violent far more cruel doctrine. This way of thinking however forgets the fact that Christianity was killing people that either refused to accept its beliefs, or refused to accept the more widely held position on Christianity long before Islam was even a minor religious movement still stuck inside the Arabian Peninsula. If I can ever find the link there was a story written some years ago that took a guess on how many people both religions killed since they were founded, I`ll post it. Christianity was winning that gig by a large number mainly because the Muslims werent the ones sailing to the Americas and undertaking in large scale genocide campaigns that would have made even the Nazis jealous.