Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

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: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:00 am

Claire wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:29 am
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.
Whose law was it?
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: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:08 am

SEG wrote:Whose law was it?
You already asked and answered this yourself:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:11 am

Claire wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:08 am
SEG wrote:Whose law was it?
You already asked and answered this yourself:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.
Who's law was it again?
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: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:10 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.
SEG wrote:Whose law was it?
You already asked and answered this yourself:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:09 am

Claire wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:10 pm
You already asked and answered this yourself:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
At last!
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: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:17 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Whose law was it?
You already asked and answered this yourself:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
SEG wrote:At last!
What?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:56 pm

Claire wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:17 am
That's called mercy not hypocrisy.
Who's law was it again?
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: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:16 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.
Who's law was it again?
Your answer: "God/Jesus/Holy Spook", and so because Jesus didn't put her to death in that moment, you think it was hypocritical, but it was mercy. How is giving someone time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance and holiness first, if they choose, rather than not and just killing them, not mercy?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:43 am

Claire wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:16 am
Your answer: "God/Jesus/Holy Spook", and so because Jesus didn't put her to death in that moment, you think it was hypocritical, but it was mercy. How is giving someone time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance and holiness first, if they choose, rather than not and just killing them, not mercy?
His cruel law that he made up to inflict the greatest amount of pain and suffering was the cause of her being brought before him in the first place. He would have been most merciful by instructing people to go to counselling sessions with their partners, instead of creating his atrociously cruel and unjust law.

Jesus didn't have make that law up and not show any mercy in the first place. Where was the love when he made that horrendous law up? He was to blame for it wasn't he? Saving one person doesn't make him merciful when he could have saved hundreds of thousands with his mercy, yet he decided to carry through with his cruelty instead.
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: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:32 am

@SEG

Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Do you agree?

Post Reply