Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Belacqua]

From what I have logically deduced on my own, science has the upper hand in relation to understanding reality over what religion pretends it knows through faith.

You learned from your society what standards to apply when judging the "upper hand" and "reality."

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, probably not. Those aren't concepts that require any particular societal structure. We get alot from society, but it's not a one sided relationship, nor are we incapable of personal observation.

If a witchdoctor says that demons did it, performs an exorcism, and the patient dies...while an actual doctor describes a medical cause and provides treatment that will effect it...and the patient lives, you don't need society to tell you there might be a difference in methods and outcomes between the two.

[Belacqua]

"When you are criticizing the philosophy of an epoch, do not chiefly direct your attention to those intellectual positions which its exponents feel it necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental assumptions which adherents to all the variant systems within the epoch unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them. With these assumptions a certain limited number of types of philosophic systems are possible, and this group of systems constitutes the philosophy of the epoch.”

— Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World

[tackattack]

To get back to the OP

---

I would say Jesus' rules apply to Jesus as well. Just read it in context all the way back to 20. "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law..." As nudger pointed out, Jesus is righteousness so that points moot. I call people fools everyday, for the right reason. Calling a spade a spade isn't a sin, doing it with a heart that's angry is. This fairly obviously what was being pointed out. It's not just the law, it's the intent you're breaking.

so you think he was rude to his Mom and therefore not honoring they father and mother?

Yes, I do. I also agree with FM’s assessment about calling people ‘fools’, although the inclusion of the passages from Galatians and James are misplaced (Jesus wasn’t the one speaking in those verses).

Boru

---

ok, so I've already explained the fools bit. Without even getting into the lexicon... Calling your mother a woman isn't rude. Rudeness is abruptness and isn't necessarily dishonoring. Imparting truth sometimes requires a rude directness. It would be dishonorable to not tell the truth to your mother.

[Fake Messiah]

tackattack, Jesus had plenty of sins like calling people fools as well as "vipers," "serpents," "hypocrites," "whited sepulchres," "thieves," and "blind." While also saying to other people to love their enemies and not to be angry because "I say to you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment".
But in Mark 3:5 Jesus does that: "He looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart." Jesus failed to practice what he preached and sinned.

He not only denounced his own mother but also said to other people that they should hate their parents "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Or just his lying to people: like when he was crucified he said to other crucified guy that today he will be with him in heaven, and yet Jesus was supposed to be under ground for 3 days; or when in Matt. 13:31-32 he says that "mustard seed is the smallest seed of all seed", when it's not.

And I could go on and on, but to what purpose? Because you would just think up some silly excuses for him because you believe Jesus must be sinless, so at the end it would look like when those Trump worshippers make excuses for his bad deeds.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's pretty much the crux of it. A person who believes, believes - but there's no reason for a believer to twist themselves into knots over these sorts of things.

That's completely optional. Is there narrative discontinuity in new magic book, with the character of jesus? Yes, and we know why. The narratives in chronological order express a change in beliefs about jesus - and the different jesi, naturally, can say different things.

[tackattack]

FM,

I thought we went over righteous anger verses hate for hates sake. You can look at something with anger but feel grieved as your very verse points out. So what's in the heart is obviously not anger.

As far as rebuking. It's understandable that a Holy God incarnate should have, and express, strong disagreements with how sinful people acted, including His mother. Honoring they mother and father doesn't mean agreeing with them in everything. If you're talking about His disavowing His mother, reading it in context that obviously isn't the case. Just as reading in context the quotes that reference all the way back to Micah, God comes first then family.

As far as the Resurrection; Jesus very well could have been Spiritually up in heaven on days 1, then headed down to purgatory on days 2-3 then resurrected back on Earth in a new body to easily tie up that alleged loose end.

Mustard seed... really? Vernacular phrases of the time period mean nothing to a literal-ist I guess. All this literal-ism of parables, and missing the point of parables and cherry-picking without context does get tedious does it not?

I thought we were supposed to be talking about Jesus punishing the guilty/innocent?

[Brian37]

Depends, if they were from Narnia or Hanalei, Jesus would abracadabra them to Mordor.

But what about the Death Star and Alderaan?

[no one]

Jesus has no power there.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you, or can you, Tack...conceive of anything in the described character of the jesus of the new testament - outside of it's own idiosyncratic definitions of sinfulness and wrongness, righteousness and goodness, that gives you pause?

Things that you struggle with, things that produce the dark night of the soul for you. Things that, even if you don't ultimately agree with some other person who offers a more explicitly negative assessment, you can at least understand?

When people point out issues with the man described in the new testament, do you really believe that every instance is an issue of a person not knowing enough about something and being wrong?

Or, to use the mustard seed example above, is the problem truly some issue of vernacular, or can you entertain that even in the poetic interpretation of the verse, that people who certainly do possess the proverbial mountain of faith can be as incapable of moving poetic mountains as those who have the proverbial mustard seed? That this statement, in any context, and in any interpretation, was plain and simply wrong? That the promise made by the character in the narrative is not an accurate description of reality, of any reasonable expectation of outcomes.

We can use me as an example. I have the proverbial and literal mountain of faith in murrica. Do you see me moving anything? Do you truly believe that I could? Does faith, faith in anything, do what the character says it does? Is that a true statement of how reality is, an ability we have, or is it how we wish it to be, and ability we desire for faith even if faith does not actually possess it? Is there no danger, practical or moral or otherwise, in fobbing off such a lie as the truth from a gods lips to our ears?