Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fighting Back!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
    It wouldn't be myself who is in deficit of logic when you are not willing to acknowledge the verb form. "Take to..." "Took a whip to...." .
    So, show me the version of Scripture that actually says that, and stop the kabuki dance.

    That's beneath an adult of your age don't you think? If you can't keep this at an adult level without resorting to condescension stop talking to me. I don't like that it brings that out in you. And I sure don't deserve it.
    Oh, quit your bellyachin'... I'm poking fun at you, and if you can't take it, just say so.

    I think you're not quite in this thread. You're emotionally invested in casting what you believe are insults and demeaning implications as to my character, when you can't recall you posted the verse you later ask for that shows where Jesus fashioned a whip of cords.
    The Scripture, please.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
      You can't produce a scripture that says he didn't hit them.
      When he fashioned a whip and took it to, the verb there is key, that's what it is saying.

      As the example I afforded before in contemporary parenting (for some). Someone who says, "My daddy use to take a switch to me and I learned my lesson."
      It doesn't say he took it to them. That is what we have been saying. give me a quote if you disagree.

      and the bible doesn't say Jesus didn't do heroin either, so are you going to argue that he did? You can't argue from silence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
        It wouldn't be myself who is in deficit of logic when you are not willing to acknowledge the verb form. "Take to..." "Took a whip to...." .
        So let's zero in on that... from whence cometh this "take to" "Took a whip to"????

        You MIGHT actually have a point, but you seem rather incapable of backing it.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=Cow Poke;107575]You're taking yourself way too seriously.


          You left out "into". I mangle titles, you mangle posts, and misread scripture.
          You're typo contagious that's what it is.
          (And I'm pulling your chain -- if you can't take it, lemme know, and I'll change to "treat this person with kidd gloves cause they can't take what they dish out" mode.
          No, I don't resort and haven't resorted to condescension in my address to you. There's a difference between teasing and condescension.
          No, you take YOUR pick to show what you've been claiming. YOU are the one making the claim, so YOU pick the version that you think supports your position.
          Jesus fashioned a whip. Why? A Whip is a weapon. Why?
          If Jesus wasn't planning on using a weapon in the temple to cleanse it of the violators of his fathers house, those who would treat it as a market place, being robbers in his fathers house, why would he fashion a whip?
          Why wouldn't he simply use his power he could call from Heaven, as he did when he called Lazarus forth from the dead, and turn over the money changers tables and cleanse the temple?

          Why did he fashion a whip ahead of time and then go forth and take that whip to the money changers? You can't defend the verb form, so the onus is on you to prove he didn't take the whip to the money changers. That he didn't hit them.
          Scripture says he took the whip to the money changers. What? He took the whip to them and said, look at this? No. Where is the scripture that says he flailed it around to scare the money changers?
          It doesn't exist. Because the early scribes probably imagined people would comprehend the verb form.

          I'm not going to derail this thread any further. As I said, you believe in the Jesus you need to believe in. I'll understand the verb form when he cleansed the temple using a weapon.
          Don't forget his disciple had a sword on him in the garden when the temple guard and Romans came to arrest Jesus. If Jesus wasn't about weapons he wouldn't have told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy one.
          A whip is nothing compared to a sword that takes the ear off a temple guard.

          sigpic
          "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
          Marcus Aurelius



          Comment


          • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
            You're typo contagious that's what it is.
            Quite possibly!

            No, I don't resort and haven't resorted to condescension in my address to you. There's a difference between teasing and condescension.
            OK, I hereby promise to be more considerate of your overly senstive nature.

            Jesus fashioned a whip. Why? A Whip is a weapon. Why?
            If Jesus wasn't planning on using a weapon in the temple to cleanse it of the violators of his fathers house, those who would treat it as a market place, being robbers in his fathers house, why would he fashion a whip?
            Why wouldn't he simply use his power he could call from Heaven, as he did when he called Lazarus forth from the dead, and turn over the money changers tables and cleanse the temple?

            Why did he fashion a whip ahead of time and then go forth and take that whip to the money changers? You can't defend the verb form, so the onus is on you to prove he didn't take the whip to the money changers. That he didn't hit them.
            Scripture says he took the whip to the money changers. What? He took the whip to them and said, look at this? No. Where is the scripture that says he flailed it around to scare the money changers?
            It doesn't exist. Because the early scribes probably imagined people would comprehend the verb form.

            I'm not going to derail this thread any further. As I said, you believe in the Jesus you need to believe in. I'll understand the verb form when he cleansed the temple using a weapon.
            Don't forget his disciple had a sword on him in the garden when the temple guard and Romans came to arrest Jesus. If Jesus wasn't about weapons he wouldn't have told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy one.
            A whip is nothing compared to a sword that takes the ear off a temple guard.
            OK, that was all wonderful, but you TOTALLY bypassed the whole crux of the thing where you claimed I didn't understand the verb ....
            so let's get back to that....

            WHERE, exactly, do you get "take to" "took a whip to"?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
              It wouldn't be myself who is in deficit of logic when you are not willing to acknowledge the verb form. "Take to..." "Took a whip to...." .
              It does not say "Took a whip to" or even "take to"

              Is that hard to comprehend? You are seeing what is not there.

              It says he made a whip and he drove (or chased) out the livestock (and perhaps the money changers) from the temple grounds. It does not say he used the whip on them, or "took the whip to" them.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It does not say "Took a whip to" or even "take to"

                Is that hard to comprehend? You are seeing what is not there.

                It says he made a whip and he drove (or chased) out the livestock (and perhaps the money changers) from the temple grounds. It does not say he used the whip on them, or "took the whip to" them.
                Remember when Other Cheek argued this so heatedly, only to admit after a LONG battle, "OK, so it doesn't say that"?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Remember when Other Cheek argued this so heatedly, only to admit after a LONG battle, "OK, so it doesn't say that"?
                  yep. and sparrow keeps avoiding the direct question which means she already knows the scripture doesn't say "took a whip to" anywhere. She can't show that verse so she ignores it and goes on. Reminds me a lot of OC in that regard.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                    Jesus took a whip to the Jewish money changers in the temple.
                    OK, so apparently, here is where we get the "took a whip to".... so those are YOUR words.

                    Now, please show where these words (or anything like them) appear in Scripture with regards to Jesus in the Temple.

                    Thanks
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • I think this goes well here.

                      Source: Christian Think Tank

                      3. The physical actions involving the whip were directed at the animals, and was forceful but not cruel:

                      "Jesus' physical action was forceful, but not cruel: one does not easily drive out cattle and sheep without a whip of cords. Still, his action could not have generated a riotous uproar, or there would have been swift reprisals from the Roman troops in the fortress of Antonia overlooking part of the temple complex." [Carson, John]

                      "The driving out of the animals from the temple area (the outer court) serves as a symbolic act. The implication is that the animals should not have been in the temple at all, and it is in this sense that the denunciation of the market atmosphere must be understood. The whip (15) was necessary to control the animals rather than to inflict any punishment upon them. " [New Bible Commentary, at John 2]

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        I think this goes well here.

                        Source: Christian Think Tank

                        3. The physical actions involving the whip were directed at the animals, and was forceful but not cruel:

                        "Jesus' physical action was forceful, but not cruel: one does not easily drive out cattle and sheep without a whip of cords. Still, his action could not have generated a riotous uproar, or there would have been swift reprisals from the Roman troops in the fortress of Antonia overlooking part of the temple complex." [Carson, John]

                        "The driving out of the animals from the temple area (the outer court) serves as a symbolic act. The implication is that the animals should not have been in the temple at all, and it is in this sense that the denunciation of the market atmosphere must be understood. The whip (15) was necessary to control the animals rather than to inflict any punishment upon them. " [New Bible Commentary, at John 2]

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Source.
                        Yes, Young's Literal, Darby and others place the "whipping" focus on the driving out of the animals, and the men with them. There is NOTHING to suggest Jesus actually hit any person. NADA.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • train_derailment-33129.gif
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]2313[/ATTACH]
                            Perfect. And so cute. Reminds me of my kitty Princess. Same white belly tuft and all.

                            sigpic
                            "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
                            Marcus Aurelius



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Really? Do you have freedom of speech in the Military? Have you ever been in the military? And it is one thing for the Government to impose certain regulations to protect the environment or to have a safe work place and another to force one man to serve another.

                              Thirteenth Amendment:

                              How is what you are talking about any different from involuntary servitude?

                              Right of Association
                              I've never been in the military. I don't understand how it would be legal to have recruits forfeit their Constitutional rights. I also don't know why you would think the military has no freedom of speech. My understanding is that it has the same limits on speech that any other government job has: if it impacts your job, you're in trouble. I would like to know what you see as the distinction between environmental and workplace safety regulations and serving certain people. If a regulation requires that certain equipment is kept well maintained or that water waste be purified, isn't that requiring service of the business to the government?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                                I've never been in the military. I don't understand how it would be legal to have recruits forfeit their Constitutional rights. I also don't know why you would think the military has no freedom of speech. My understanding is that it has the same limits on speech that any other government job has: if it impacts your job, you're in trouble. I would like to know what you see as the distinction between environmental and workplace safety regulations and serving certain people. If a regulation requires that certain equipment is kept well maintained or that water waste be purified, isn't that requiring service of the business to the government?
                                Source: Military Law Task Force


                                Another limitation is that courts have allowed the military to require its members to submit some things for approval before mailing or publishing them. For example look at the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980). In civilian life this would absolutely violate the first amendment of the Constitution; it's called "prior restraint."

                                The U.S. Supreme Court, in cases where GI's were seeking rights similar to those of civilians, has said, "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. We have also recognized that the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history. The differences between the military and civilian communities result from the fact that it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. . . . An army is not a deliberative body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience."

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 09:17 AM
                                13 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 04:51 PM
                                6 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:16 PM
                                32 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:11 AM
                                0 responses
                                29 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Reepicheep, 10-23-2021, 12:53 PM
                                58 responses
                                302 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X