MizMyColi:


honestly?
D'ya think you just made any senxse?

urheme:

MizMyColi:

Yes!
Yes!

I believe. Mutual respect is key.
Both sides need to stop feeling superior over the other.
They need to give each other grace.

They need to accept people based on their person(alities), not their belief or unbelief.
Before we were born into religion, first we were born humans.

Kay17:


I think MizMyColi is a plain coward trying to cling and get the best out of two opposing 'worlds'. What the hell is compassion and love?! It is people with filled stomachs that have much to say about the universality of love and compassion. Life itself is a struggle, an internal war either between right and wrong or hope and hopelessness; hatred is as necessary as love, because you can not love evil, one must hate it.

ifeness:
OP really wanna know the violent nature of the bible god huh? Make we start? With all the kill kill kill kill stone the death in the bible? The idioot even killed his own son to please himself!

MizMyColi:
AirborneLacer, I feel like crying now




Thank You.
Thank You.

For standing in the Gap for me.

Even at the fact that you are a Christian.
Thank you for coming to my aid, thank you.

MizMyColi:
Kay17
You've not answered my question, are you a Christian?

Wiegraf, "too true" really!?

Care to expatiate?

AirborneLacer:


She's not a plain coward, she's brave.

For the fact that many people out there are shying away from such 'impossible task' goes to tell how much they've embraced conformity.

Upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other.

Just like hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be.

So in essence, MizmyColi is trying to unite two opposites by using a simple formula - Grace and Love.

She's perfecting the works of a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus who suggested the Unity of Opposites idea.

If you can't think, allow mates who are doing so to keep traveling on that onward trajectory.

And please, don't you ever resort to insults next time - Just an advice

AirborneLacer:


Let them hurl the stones at me now - I'm ready.

MizMyColi:
Please is there a way to double share and double ike posts on nairaland?
I need to know.

MizMyColi:
Please is there a way to double share and double ike posts on nairaland?
I need to know.

wiegraf:


it's pretty clear.

chibwike:
Yes, buh u'd practice it on my post first

AirborneLacer:


She's not a plain coward, she's brave.

For the fact that many people out there are shying away from such 'impossible task' goes to tell how much they've embraced conformity.

Upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other.

Just like hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be.

So in essence, MizmyColi is trying to unite two opposites by using a simple formula - Grace and Love.

She's perfecting the works of a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus who suggested the Unity of Opposites idea.

If you can't think, allow mates who are doing so to keep traveling on that onward trajectory.

And please, don't you ever resort to insulths next time - Just an advice

AirborneLacer:


Let them hurl the stones at me now - I'm ready.

MizMyColi:
Kay17, I await your reply.
I need to know.

That's the only way I can give a befitting reply to that post where you called me a coward.

Please do when you can.

Thanks.

musKeeto:

This is silly. Neither upward nor downwards exist. They are just points of references, just like latitude and longitude. My upward could be your downwards.

Her response to my question is true cowardice. Jesus' violent display at the synagogue makes nonsense of her OP. Rather than tackle it....

Moskeeto, agree or not, that was a sound argument he put up.
Watch it Dear, you just might be the one trying to silly up yourself here.
@TheEmboldened, I agree with you. But then, it doesn't change the fact that there is an upward and downward right?
And what might be needed, despite our different realities (upward and downward) would be a common ground?

So I'm a coward because I don't carry this highfalutin attitude that is typical of your likes, who feel that they've been enlightened and as such, everyone must be less?
Who speak with so much certainty even when they know, deep within, that there is twice as much they don't know than they do know?
I wasn't so sure and I excused my self, and that made me a coward?

You wanted me to tackle, because that's what your kind has been trained to do.
Have an answer for every opposing question.
Study, you can never appear ignorant.
You must always have an answer for every question thrown at you, whether you're sure of it or not, whether you're convinced or not.
Throw jabs at them.
Look for a weak point and work it on them.
whatever happens, you cannot loose an argument.




Seeing as you want an answer, here's one, from the same source as the OP. I hope you're prepared for a long read

DID JESUS ENDORSE VIOLENCE BY HIS CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND HIS CURSING OF THE FIG TREE?

These two episodes are discussed together here because they are connected in time and purpose. Mark11:12-26 indicates that Jesus cursed the fig tree just before entering Jerusalem to "cleanse the Temple" from the thieving "sellers and moneychangers." The next morning, Jesus revisited the fig tree to see that it had "dried up and withered from its roots" due to His earlier curse. Since the cleansing of the Temple is sandwiched between the cursing of the fig tree and its subsequent withering, it is clear these events are vitally linked. But before I explain their connection, I first want to make some preliminary points.

First, this passage is the most common Scripture cited for the proposition that Jesus DID engage in physical violence during His ministry. I once had a wrathful pastor use this passage to confidently claim that Jesus was like the martial arts film star Steven Seagal, violently chopping down opponents with "literal" kicks, punches and machine guns.

Sadly, I could see the unrighteous bloodlust in this pastor's eyes as he used this passage to create a monster I can only describe as KILLER JESUS. The bloodlust I saw in his eyes reminded me of paintings I have seen depicting the Roman gladiatorial games where the rabid crowd gives a frothing "thumbs-down" to fallen gladiators, a sign which required the victors to then slit the vanquished's throats. The crowd wanted violence. The pastor wanted violence. He used this Bible passage to claim Jesus wanted violence.

There is only one problem with that pastor's claim: it is absolutely groundless. Jesus hurt NO human being in this event, for if He had, He could and would have been LAWFULLY arrested, something the Jewish authorities had desperately wanted to happen. Mark 11:18 confirms that the scribes and chief pharisees wanted to destroy Him in this passage, so His breaking of the law by assaulting several Temple Jews would have given them all the ammunition they needed. But, this Scripture at no point claims that Jesus harmed ANY human at ANY time in this story. Jesus "knocked over" some tables and verbally "cast out" a group of profiteering thieves who had no right to be in the Temple in the first place.

And in fact, AFTER Jesus cleared the Temple of the thieves, look at WHO and WHAT immediately took their place. The "blind and lame" came into the Temple courts and "He healed them all" (Matthew 21:14). Then, a large group of "children" came and saw the healings and started "crying in the Temple, and saying Hosanna to the son of David." (Matthew 21:15-16). Jesus rejoiced at this and called what these children did "perfect praise." The point is that Jesus "cast out" the faithless, felonious and fruitless elements present in the Temple courts SO THAT they could be replaced with elements of fruitful faith and fervent worship.

This passage says that ALL there, including the chief priests and scribes, saw "the wonderful things that He did" (Matthew 21:15). This is hardly a mandate for KILLER JESUS is it? No, when we read the context of what REALLY happened here, we see it was a wonderful healing and worship revival rather than some sort of bloodbath where Jesus is beating and brutalizing people. But, because our wrathful eyes are so trained to focus on violence, we take Jesus' actions totally out of context and ignore the "perfect praise" and "healing" ministry that resulted from Jesus' actions. The Matthew 21:1-17 version of events makes no mention EVER of anybody being harmed. It is as simple as that.

But, didn't Jesus take a whip and beat the money changers away? No, not at all. Matthew's and Mark's respective Gospel versions of this event (Matthew 21:1-17; Mark 11:12-26) never even MENTION a whip. And while John's version does mention Jesus taking "a scourge of small cords" to drive "the sheep and oxen" from the Temple, commentators since the earliest centuries confirm, as have most modern translations, that this passage limits the scourging to just the sheep and cattle, and not to the men. (See Today's English Version; The Moffat Translation; The Darby Bible; The Goodspeed Bible; The Zurich Bible; The New Revised Standard Version; The World English Bible; The Authorized Standard Version; and commentators McGregor, Temple, Plummer and Strachan). These Bible versions and commentators connect the "all" in John 2:15 as referring to BOTH "all" the sheep and to "all" the cattle, but NOT to "all" the moneychangers.

These translators all believe that the proper Greek construction of this passage can refer to EITHER the sellers and moneychangers OR to the sheep and cattle, but not to both. The common sense context here makes the sheep and cattle the only sensible option, particularly since the following verse (v.16) has Jesus orally telling the remaining den of thieves to leave, an action hardly necessary if he had ALREADY whipped them all away. It is obvious that the cord of small knots was for the animals alone. But was this cruel to the animals? Not at all, particularly since they were all about to be sacrificially executed if Jesus had let them be. If nothing else, Jesus was giving the animals a reprieve to live another day.

The term used to describe Jesus' actions toward the moneychangers and sellers was that He "cast them out." To "cast out" merely means that Jesus commanded them out and away from the Temple, and in fact John 2:16 tells us that Jesus VERBALLY commanded the merchandisers to "take their things hence." Remember, Jesus spoke with an authoritative tone in His voice like no one had ever heard before (Matthew 7:29). He even bowled over several troops by just using His voice in John 18:6.

The bottom line is that to use this episode of Jesus cleansing the Temple, wherein He healed the lame and the blind in the midst of a cadre of children crying perfect praise in His Father's house, AS PROOF that Jesus used physical violence on men------ is simply ridiculous. If anything, it proves just the opposite. Jesus cleared the Temple courts WITHOUT sword or fist. Did He use aggression? Yes, certainly, but He did NOT use physical brutality. He was not KILLER JESUS!

Now, what about the cursing of the fig tree? Can this be used to justify the claim that God curses men to wither and die just as He did the fig tree? Certainly not! A plant is NOT human, NOT sentient, and NOT made in the image of God. To use violence against a plant to justify violence against a human is outrageous and silly.

Moreover, the real meaning behind the cursing of the fig tree is directly connected to the cleansing of the Temple. Jesus, just before entering Jerusalem to cleanse the Temple of the sellers and moneychangers, first passes an unproductive fig tree (Mark 11:12-26). Jesus then tells the fig tree that no man shall ever eat its fruit again. He then proceeds into Jerusalem and cleanses the Temple as described above. He then leaves the city. The next day, Jesus passes the fig tree again and sees that it has dried up from its roots and died, all within 24 hours of Jesus first speaking to it.

So, what does this mean? Jesus was merely repeating, reinforcing and re-demonstrating to the disciples the exact same dynamic He revealed to them when He zealously cleansed the Temple. UNFRUITFULNESS MUST GO!

Jesus purged the unfruitful elements out of both the Temple and the fig tree. Jesus verbally rebuked the false and fruitless authorities out of His Father's house which had made it a den of thieves. He cast them out, then what IMMEDIATELY happens? Fruitfulness RUSHES in to fill the vacuum with the healing of the blind and lame combined with the perfected praise of the children described earlier. Do you see? Unfruitfulness is VERBALLY denounced SO THAT fruitfulness can return. So too with the fig tree. Jesus denounced the unfruitful fig tree SO THAT another fruitful fig tree could grow in that same spot.

This is why I believe the fig tree and the Temple-cleansing form a double-helix dynamic where Jesus is modeling the same exact message twice. He denounced the sellers and moneychangers so that fruitfulness would be restored to His Father's house, which it immediately was. He THEN repeated the lesson by denouncing a barren fig tree so that fruitfulness could likewise be restored to the area being taken up by the worthless plant.

The point of this passage is that Jesus aggressively, but not violently, purges the false identities out of creation which do not bear fruit---- demonstrated here by removing the false motivators out of His Temple, and then by removing the false plant which bear no fruit. Both the Temple and the fig tree had become empty husks---- false identities in other words. Jesus emptied the Temple of the false so He could fill it with the real. Jesus then removed the false fig tree so that a real one could grow in its place. Jesus is zealous that all things Godly MUST bear fruit.

So then, this passage is not about the KILLER JESUS, but rather about the HEALER JESUS! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
#EndOfStory


Believe whatever you want now
and please, don't refer to me as a coward next time.
I'm letting this slide because I believe in mutual respect in online community relations.

Tenks.

AirborneLacer:


She's not a plain coward, she's brave.

For the fact that many people out there are shying away from such 'impossible task' goes to tell how much they've embraced conformity.

Upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other.

Just like hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be.

So in essence, MizmyColi is trying to unite two opposites by using a simple formula - Grace and Love.

She's perfecting the works of a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus who suggested the Unity of Opposites idea.

If you can't think, allow mates who are doing so to keep traveling on that onward trajectory.

And please, don't you ever resort to insults next time - Just an advice

pickabeau1:


which stones
why will u be looking for stones on a thread supposed to be about 'grace' and 'love'

I like the angle u brought in about the Greek philosopher - Heraclitus

Since u seem to be more willing to give straight answers rather than unsure postulations,, i will engage u

- Did he also try to bridge theism and atheism

Kay17:


Have you ever heard of the term - contradiction?! If she claims to b a Christian, wouldn't be a contradiction for her to assume a position directly opposite to Christianity?!

Neither does she have any noble design or duty to unite two opposing systems, rather her contradiction is a consequence of her cowardice.

mzmycoli: There is only one problem with that pastor's claim: it is absolutely groundless. Jesus hurt NO human being in this event, for if He had, He could and would have been LAWFULLY arrested, something the Jewish authorities had desperately wanted to happen. Mark 11:18 confirms that the scribes and chief pharisees wanted to destroy Him in this passage, so His breaking of the law by assaulting several Temple Jews would have given them all the ammunition they needed. But, this Scripture at no point claims that Jesus harmed ANY human at ANY time in this story. Jesus "knocked over" some tables and verbally "cast out" a group of profiteering thieves who had no right to be in the Temple in the first place.

MizMyColi:


@TheEmboldened, isn't that a clear example of opposing ideas the philosopher would wanna unite.

I figure him calling atheist and theist for a conference and saying,

Guys, Guys, you believe in God, you don't believe in God.
you two are right in your own respects.
Especially seeing as no truth is absolute.

But then, is there a way for you two to live in peace and harmony, seeing as we share same resources in almost all regards.
Can we be brothers and talk freely about what we hold dear without going on each other's throat or trying to shove one's belief down the other's neck.

Christians, can you pray and believe that your atheist brothers will find the true light of Christ again? - and while at it keep loving hell out of them?

Atheists and every other "ists"
Can you have good hope that one day your christian brothers will see and know exactly what you know that God is a fairy tale? - and until then, keep loving and wishing them the best?

All we need here is a common ground.

We are one, we are connected, agree or not.

Also Pickabeau, when he said let them hurl stones, he meant those who have made it a duty to throw jabs and insults at me, directly and indirectly on this thread.

He is a Christian, a full Christian and I respect and love and accept him for his choices - whatever they are.
He might not be a good candidate to further project that debate to.

pickabeau1:
Now you have spoken finally...all u said earlier was Im not sure, I dont know,,


Errmmm.....


I still dont get all this

How can there be common ground between those who deny the existence of that which YOU claim exists within YOU

Decency..yes
Respect..yes

But reconciliation of beliefs... sounds new age to me?

MizMyColi:


Reconciliation of beliefs?
How is that gonna be possible, those are two extremes and I don't think that's what xcapist meant.

You just named the common grounds and that does it for me, at least.

http://bible.us/rev19.11-16.kjv And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND Lord OF LORDS.

Kay17:


This is a re-interpretation of the relevant passage. Jesus acted on the emotion of anger (which Jesus himself claimed was the root of evils), and under the proper context, the destruction of property and the possible infliction of harm on the marketeers can be assumed. Jesus wouldn't have mildly knocked over a few tables and spoken softly to the marketeers to leave the Temple. The reasonable force required to clear a Temple of such size off a market of considerable size, must be assumed.

The Jewish authority eventually nailed Jesus with the charge that he was the son of God and King of Jews, they didn't need to go so far to pin him with that charge.

More importantly, what do you understand by Love? Do you think it is an instinct/emotion or a rational conclusion? Pls explainto us what you think love is AND the rewards of love.

Excuse me, did you read the text completely, how could a small cord, used to shoo away things cause such destruction of lives and property. FYI, imo, I can only imagine what Jesus' presence alone in his day must have caused, seeing as he was a celebrity of sorts. These are mere speculations, things you so desperately wanna believe about Jesus.
Meanwhile, you must have let yourself get influenced by that JW book of bible stories, it's okay, we all did

No, even if the devil had nothing in him, how much more the pharisees, trust me, if they had other accusations, no matter how small, they'd bring it up, remember the jewish officials actually went as far as cajoling people to testify against him?

They found nothing on him o jare my brother.
Infact if that issue at the temple was such a fuss as you're making it seem now, the officials would have arrested him on the count that he posed a threat to human lives and infrastructure, in addition to that high handed claim, don't you think?

I think 2nd Corinthians pretty much defines love for me. Everything I might say is embedded in that chapter.

Wanna read?

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Now if the bible claims that God is love and yet attributes those killings and genocide to him, isn't there an obvious contradiction?

Could it be that the jewish writers must have confused the cosmic rebel, satan as God left hand, his minister of wrath?


These are things I'm not so sure of, because I wasn't there.
That's why I rarely talk about them.

Don't confuse my silence for stewpidity and ignorance.

I chose a path and I'm happy on that path, what anyone thinks of me is their business. I owe no man zilch in that regard, it is my journey.
What I will not tolerate is being talked to in a denigrative manner because of my stand - that life and love is my religion.

pickabeau1:

I see where you're going and what you're trying to rope me into.
I don't claim to have all the answers, the OP doesn't either.

I see no need to open a thread to say that. I believe that my life and examples, albeit imperfect, is enough to communicate that message.

You believe what you want about Jesus and God and Holy spirit.
I believe what I want to.

No, I haven't been defensive at all.

That would require some level of bitterness on my part.

Btw, it's not just one guy, there are 4.
Goan count properly.

I won't be replying any more mentions from you.
Giving you a heads up, so you won't think of it as being discourteous, tenks.


One more thing, try as much as you can, especially the book of revelations - never take anything there literally, never.
Things are not always the way they seem.

I could give you a load down of explanation on that verse, but I've decided to stop this interaction for now.
and yeah, he's still very much my buddy and he has bones in his body.

MizMyColi:


I see where you're going and what you're trying to rope me into.
I don't claim to have all the answers, the OP doesn't either.

You believe what you want about Jesus and God and Holy spirit.
I believe what I want to.

No, I haven't been defensive at all.

That would require some level of bitterness on my part.

Btw, it's not just one guy, there are 4.
Goan count properly.

I won't be replying any more mentions from you.
Giving you a heads up, so you won't think of it as being discourteous, tenks.

MizMyColi:

Moskeeto, agree or not, that was a sound argument he put up.

MizMyColi:

Watch it Dear, you just might be the one trying to silly up yourself here.

MizMyColi:

@TheEmboldened, I agree with you. But then, it doesn't change the fact that there is an upward and downward right?

MizMyColi:

And what might be needed, despite our different realities (upward and downward) would be a common ground?

MizMyColi:

So I'm a coward because I don't carry this highfalutin attitude that is typical of your likes, who feel that they've been enlightened and as such, everyone must be less?

MizMyColi:

Who speak with so much certainty even when they know, deep within, that there is twice as much they don't know than they do know?

MizMyColi:

I wasn't so sure and I excused my self, and that made me a coward?

MizMyColi:

You wanted me to tackle, because that's what your kind has been trained to do.
Have an answer for every opposing question.

MizMyColi:

Study, you can never appear ignorant.
You must always have an answer for every question thrown at you, whether you're sure of it or not, whether you're convinced or not.
Throw jabs at them.
Look for a weak point and work it on them.
whatever happens, you cannot loose an argument.