Jesus seems to hate some things. Do you? Is hate good?

[Mopsus]

There's no life in this world without death. Likewise, there's no love in this world without hate.

[Mopsus]

There's no life in this world without death. Likewise, there's no love in this world without hate.

Oh great, as if we needed another HOT TAKE specialist in a thread like this.

Actually, if this take remains hot 2,500 years later, then Heraclitus has been vindicated once and for all.

[Mopsus]

He was emphasizing the point that, if you have to choose between family/friends and the right thing, choose the right thing. He also said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies.

Are instructions to "dash their babies against rocks" and kill adulteresses part of "love your enemies?"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:14
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=KJV

[Mopsus]

Matthew 11:20

Wouldn't you condemn towns where adulteresses were stoned and men fantasized about killing gentile babies?

[Mopsus]

There's no doubt that there's a lot of good ethical views espoused in the NT, but the OT is not to simply be ignored. The same God of the OT is the Father described in the NT, and Jesus came to fulfill His laws and commandments. The two cannot be separated, nor can we simply ignore or dismiss the values espoused in the OT.

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, then the Law must be reinterpreted in light of his teachings, no?

[Mopsus]

Matthew 11:20

Wouldn't you condemn towns where adulteresses were stoned and men fantasized about killing gentile babies?

No. I wouldn't condemn an entire town and all it's inhabitants no.

Dissenting townspeople could have followed Jesus into the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, they chose to sit quietly among the unrepentant.

[Mopsus]

Matthew 11:20

Wouldn't you condemn towns where adulteresses were stoned and men fantasized about killing gentile babies?

No. I wouldn't condemn an entire town and all it's inhabitants no.

Dissenting townspeople could have followed Jesus into the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, they chose to sit quietly among the unrepentant.

He condemned Capernaum, but it remained inhabited for 1000 years.

But did its inhabitants live for 1000 years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." - Genesis 18:32

[Mopsus]

Probably not helpful to post a quotation from Genesis which is the same book in which the entire world is wiped out in a flood. Again, something I wouldn't do.

Unfortunately for the world, there were fewer than ten righteous men in the whole joint. Those there were, however, were saved.

[Mopsus]

Unfortunately for the world, there were fewer than ten righteous men in the whole joint. Those there were, however, were saved.

You're conflating the Flood story with the Cities of the Plain story.

No, I'm extrapolating: If God would spare an entire city for the sake of ten righteous men, how far beyond redemption was the antediluvian world?

[Mopsus]

Why does god end violence with greater acts of violence? Again, why is his response always disproportionate? Why are we more temperate and measured in our response to slights against us?

Lamech killed a young man for striking him; that was the state of humanity before the Flood, after God preserved Cain's life in spite of the demands of earthly justice. As a thanks, we initiated a cycle of bloodletting that had no conceivable terminus. Global baptism was the only cure.

[Mopsus]

Why does god end violence with greater acts of violence? Again, why is his response always disproportionate? Why are we more temperate and measured in our response to slights against us?

Lamech killed a young man for striking him; that was the state of humanity before the Flood, after God preserved Cain's life in spite of the demands of earthly justice. As a thanks, we initiated a cycle of bloodletting that had no conceivable terminus. Global baptism was the only cure.

And god sent she bears to kill 42 children for making fun of a bald prophet. He slaughtered children for doing what children do. Again, why is god so agressively inhuman and disproportionate in his responses? Why do we display better core moral restraints?

Before Elijah ascended to Heaven, his disciple Elisha asked for a double portion of his spirit; Elijah called this "a hard thing", but granted it to him anyway. Shortly thereafter, Elisha cursed a group of children who were mocking him, and as a result, they were quickly eaten up by bears.

The point isn't the severity of God's punishment, but the capriciousness of man's power.

[Mopsus]

Can you love the one raping your wife or child?

Sure. What if your daughter rapes your wife?

Part of that teaching is Jesus' no divorce law. He agreed with Yahweh who said let no man put asunder.

That no divorce law would force people to live in loveless or abusive relationships and is thus anti-love and unjust.

Do you agree?

Story's an allegory: Jesus wasn't talking about the marriage between men and women, but the marriage between God and man. What he said to his disciples afterwards still stands, however.

Are you saying that God can only kill and cannot cure?

That would suggest that God, who is said to be all powerful, which would include an all powerful power of persuasion, must take the immoral low ground of killing because he cannot take the moral high ground and cure.

Perhaps you are right but even doing nothing is more moral than killing instead of curing.

What happened is that the children of Cain had contaminated the earth with their violence, each generation becoming more unjust than the last. In the Uncreation, the bad blood was washed away, and the Noahide Laws were set up to hold back future tides of violence. Of course, God knows that we've often strayed from those laws, but he's storing up a second baptism for us - not one of water, but one of fire.

[Mopsus]

youre

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.