Jesus the horse thief

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Jesus the horse thief

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:19 pm

Luke 19, verses 29 - 36.
19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
19:31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
19:32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
19:33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
19:34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
19:35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
19:36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
Jesus and his henchmen took a horse (colt) without prior approval or permission of the owner. This is known as 'theft' or stealing and a breach of the 10 Commandments and of common law. Jesus told two of his men to go into the town and where they would find a horse. He told them to get the horse and bring it to him without being seen, but if they were seen, to inform the guy that they were taking his horse from that "Because the Lord hath need of him.", withought further explanation.

This story has Jesus breaking God's subjective moral law and also involves conspiracy and coercion. How can Christians justify any of this?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:45 pm

Then they all got naked and dirtied their clothes? ···"And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way."
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Lich
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:10 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Lich » Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:23 am

The most common response from Christians will be: "It can't be a sin if God commanded it."

You see, the Christian god has ordered rape, murder, genocide, looting of entire cities, slavery, human sacrifice, and the list goes on. The instance you pointed out must be the least serious in all examples of the Christian god breaking its own commandments.
Delusion is denial of reality, and reality is truth. If the truth offends you, guess what you are.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Chapabel » Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:12 am

The colt was not stolen at all. Read the account again. The owner did not protest the disciples taking his donkey for Jesus’ use. To steal is to take without permission. The disciples obviously had the permission of the owner. This is just another of your baseless accusations.

Lich
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:10 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Lich » Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:49 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:12 am
The colt was not stolen at all. Read the account again. The owner did not protest the disciples taking his donkey for Jesus’ use. To steal is to take without permission. The disciples obviously had the permission of the owner. This is just another of your baseless accusations.
Perhaps it's you who should read the account again, since nowhere in the passage does the owner give permission. That is an assumption you've made based on your cognitive bias.
Delusion is denial of reality, and reality is truth. If the truth offends you, guess what you are.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Claire » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:35 am

Lich wrote:
Chapabel wrote:
SEG wrote:Jesus and his henchmen took a horse (colt) without prior approval or permission of the owner.
The colt was not stolen at all. Read the account again.
Perhaps it's you who should read the account again, since nowhere in the passage does the owner give permission. That is an assumption you've made based on your cognitive bias.
"Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to me. And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye, that the Lord hath need of them: and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them." (Matthew 21:2-6)

So, those who witnessed the disciples loose the donkey and colt did not contest, rather allowed, and it fulfilled the prophecy spoken by the prophet (cf. Zechariah 9:9).

Lich
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:10 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Lich » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:50 am

Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:35 am
SEG wrote:Jesus and his henchmen took a horse (colt) without prior approval or permission of the owner.
"Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to me. And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye, that the Lord hath need of them: and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them." (Matthew 21:2-6)

So, those who witnessed the disciples loose the colt and donkey did not contest, rather allowed, and it fulfilled the prophecy spoken by the prophet (cf. Zechariah 9:9).
Point #1:Jesus said they would allow it, but in no part of the passages does it say they did. In fact, other than to say "why are you taking my shit dude?" the passage doesn't mention the owners saying anything at all.

Point #2: Even if what you're saying were true, simply allowing something to happen without contestation does not imply a lack of theft. If strange men came into your home and said Jesus told them to take your vehicle, and you feared they may be armed and dangerous, would you be stupid enough to try and stop them? Or would you allow them to take your vehicle, and then notify the authorities afterward, like an intelligent person?

Conclusion: We can't technically know either way, and so nobody can conclude for certain whether the animals were stolen, or freely given. However, since the passage doesn't show permission given, and it is highly unlikely that the owners would give anyone permission to freely take valuable animals from their land, there is probable cause to suspect that the animals were stolen.
Delusion is denial of reality, and reality is truth. If the truth offends you, guess what you are.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by SEG » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:02 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:12 am
The colt was not stolen at all. Read the account again. The owner did not protest the disciples taking his donkey for Jesus’ use. To steal is to take without permission. The disciples obviously had the permission of the owner. This is just another of your baseless accusations.
How do you know whether it was a horse or a donkey, the text doesn't say and it could be either? The owner did not have protest the stand over men of Jesus stealing his colt, the point is that they weren't given permission. You can't take people's property and take it for granted they don't mind. They could have been scared stiff!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Claire » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:58 am

Lich wrote:
Claire wrote:"Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to me. And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye, that the Lord hath need of them: and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them." (Matthew 21:2-6)

So, those who witnessed the disciples loose the donkey and colt did not contest, rather allowed, and it fulfilled the prophecy spoken by the prophet (cf. Zechariah 9:9).
Point #1:Jesus said they would allow it, but in no part of the passages does it say they did. In fact, other than to say "why are you taking my shit dude?" the passage doesn't mention the owners saying anything at all.

Point #2: Even if what you're saying were true, simply allowing something to happen without contestation does not imply a lack of theft. If strange men came into your home and said Jesus told them to take your vehicle, and you feared they may be armed and dangerous, would you be stupid enough to try and stop them? Or would you allow them to take your vehicle, and then notify the authorities afterward, like an intelligent person?

Conclusion: We can't technically know either way, and so nobody can conclude for certain whether the animals were stolen, or freely given. However, since the passage doesn't show permission given, and it is highly unlikely that the owners would give anyone permission to freely take valuable animals from their land, there is probable cause to suspect that the animals were stolen.
Refutation to point #1:
Jesus told the disciples that any man who says anything will let the animals go upon knowing who's in need of them. It ended up being the owners who said something, asking the disciples why they were loosing the animals (Luke 19:33), and were made aware of who was in need of them (Luke 19:34).

Refutation to point #2:
Just as a lack of contestation doesn't imply a lack of theft, nor does a lack of contestation imply theft. Especially, when there's a lack of implicit, or explicit threats of harm coming from the party being accused of "theft".

Conclusion: With the lack of harmful threats from the disciples, lack of contestation from the owners, there is probable cause to suspect that the animals were not stolen. Especially, when considering the value of the animals, it's hard to believe the owners would just silently watch them go.

Lich
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:10 am

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Lich » Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:20 am

Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:58 am

Refutation to point #1:
Jesus told the disciples that any man who says anything will let the animals go upon knowing who's in need of them. It ended up being the owners who said something, asking the disciples why they were loosing the animals (Luke 19:33), and were made aware of who was in need of them (Luke 19:34).
Where's the refutation?
Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:58 am
Refutation to point #2:
Just as a lack of contestation doesn't imply a lack of theft, nor does a lack of contestation imply theft. Especially, when there's a lack of implicit or explicit threats of harm coming from the party being accused of "theft".
Still waiting on that refutation. You've said nothing yet that even goes against one of my points.
Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:58 am
Conclusion: With the lack of harmful threats from the disciples, lack of contestation from the owners, there is probable cause to suspect that the animals were not stolen. Especially, when considering the value of the animals, it's hard to believe the owners would just silently watch them go.
You've completely ignored my point of it being ill-advised to have a direct confrontation with men who could be dangerous, you've completely ignored my point that it is highly unlikely that anyone would just allow strangers to freely take valuable animals from their land with no official authority to do so unless under duress, and you've failed to present any type of "refutation" whatsoever, yet claim to have done so. Either you have no idea what you're doing, or you're incredibly unintelligent.

Refutation requires this little thing we call "rebuttal." Nothing you said even began to rebut my arguments. Try again.
Delusion is denial of reality, and reality is truth. If the truth offends you, guess what you are.

Post Reply