|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jun 1, 2013 15:32:47 GMT 1
Clint on behalf of the world I apologize. It's not you guys' fault. You don't have the relationship I do with Him. (Heck, there are times I suck at knowing Him) Ooh, good question. The answer is that he always had a choice. He was personally handpicked by Christ to serve as close follower (we're talking 3 years of campfires, folks) and he saw all of Christ's miracles and stayed in spite of the danger from pharisees and romans and peter's big mouth. He was sent out by Christ (all of them were sent out in pairs, twice) and performed miracles himself. He heard Jesus say multiple times that he had a job to do that would require his death (and Resurrection). He knew who he was dealing with. Some suggest he wanted to make Christ announce himself publicly and defeat the authorities, but whatever his reasons for the betrayal, his condemnation came not because of his actions but because of his choice to not understand and to not accept Christ's grace. He lived with the man for 3 years and yet could not understand the basics about what he was on earth to do. When he finally got it (right about the time he threw the money back) instead of remembering that and repenting, he hung himself in shame. Hanging himself wasn't his screw up. Not repenting was.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jun 1, 2013 15:34:53 GMT 1
I didn't think it was my fault...
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jun 1, 2013 15:39:11 GMT 1
OK. Well then. Neither do I. Let us proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jun 1, 2013 17:45:34 GMT 1
Not really since Judas already did his job by screwing over Jesus to the Romans. So punching him in the face while the Centurions are stood right there could be a good reaction. But why punish a man for doing what he was meant to do? Because you would still be friggin' pissed? In the end Judas hung himself and i'm pretty sure in most versions you end up in hell for that....so you got that thing going against him.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jun 1, 2013 20:57:24 GMT 1
Clint on behalf of the world I apologize. It's not you guys' fault. You don't have the relationship I do with Him. (Heck, there are times I suck at knowing Him) Ooh, good question. The answer is that he always had a choice. He was personally handpicked by Christ to serve as close follower (we're talking 3 years of campfires, folks) and he saw all of Christ's miracles and stayed in spite of the danger from pharisees and romans and peter's big mouth. He was sent out by Christ (all of them were sent out in pairs, twice) and performed miracles himself. He heard Jesus say multiple times that he had a job to do that would require his death (and Resurrection). He knew who he was dealing with. Some suggest he wanted to make Christ announce himself publicly and defeat the authorities, but whatever his reasons for the betrayal, his condemnation came not because of his actions but because of his choice to not understand and to not accept Christ's grace. He lived with the man for 3 years and yet could not understand the basics about what he was on earth to do. When he finally got it (right about the time he threw the money back) instead of remembering that and repenting, he hung himself in shame. Hanging himself wasn't his screw up. Not repenting was. Wow... I was not aware a simple game idea would be taken as a personal attack or whatever. Odd, that. *raises one eyebrow*Also, I was asking Gorvar... in response to what Gorvar had said... regarding the punishing a man for doing what he is fated to do. I was not looking for the religious answer, I was looking for the modern, logical answer. And now: But why punish a man for doing what he was meant to do? Because you would still be friggin' pissed? Okay - I see your point there... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jun 1, 2013 21:03:33 GMT 1
Here's a karma point....oh kitty!
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jun 1, 2013 21:07:41 GMT 1
Oh, Gorvar - you really are adorable... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jun 1, 2013 21:57:09 GMT 1
Huh? No attack was taken, none returned. I thought you were asking a general question.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jun 2, 2013 0:56:10 GMT 1
I also like the idea of playing - rather than as Dark Jesus, how about instead having the choice between "Mortal Prophet Jesus" or "Son of God / Actually Divine Jesus"? Taking the contrast between the two schools of thought that he was either actually the Son of God, or he was just a mortal man who had charm and charisma and a boat-load of political influence? I don't quite believe in a Dark Jesus... from all accounts I've read, he was a good man - whether a Good Mortal Man or a Good Demi-God Man... I don't recall reading any accounts of him beating people up or being Militant. I know the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" might not be the most accurate representation, but... I do recall him having to calmly talk his men out of wanting to fight... Not to start a fight here, but He is quoted in the Gospel (Matthew 10:34-39; KJV) as saying "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth" I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. " The time He chastised His disciple for being fast to use a sword, it was done when it was when it came time for the prophesy to come to pass where He was to be arrested and put to death. At the same event, He told His disciples the following: (Luke 22:34-37; KJV) "And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end." Jesus was a man of peace, but from what I've read in the Gospel, he wasn't against violence if it was necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jun 2, 2013 1:19:44 GMT 1
@iron: Now, I've never claimed to have read the Bible or the Gospels in their entirety, and I am not actually a Christian, but I will say this: There is a world of difference between being a violent Militant aggressor, and being a good man who is a great leader who is willing to do violence if necessary. Look at your own career in the Military - you yourself are a good man, and you are in a job that might require you to end up in battle eventually... but you would never go around beating people up just for the love of violence... (and please please don't take offence to the example I just used - I mean no offence, I am trying to make a point).
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jun 2, 2013 1:37:28 GMT 1
@iron: Now, I've never claimed to have read the Bible or the Gospels in their entirety, and I am not actually a Christian, but I will say this: There is a world of difference between being a violent Militant aggressor, and being a good man who is a great leader who is willing to do violence if necessary. Look at your own career in the Military - you yourself are a good man, and you are in a job that might require you to end up in battle eventually... but you would never go around beating people up just for the love of violence... (and please please don't take offence to the example I just used - I mean no offence, I am trying to make a point). No offense taken. But I tire of people who seem to think that Jesus was a full-blown pacifict. He wasn't. He looked for the most peaceful solution, but would use violence if he had to (see him boot-stomping the people who desecrated the temple by making it into a market). I actually asked my pastor about the dichotomy of me being a man of peace, but choosing to study the arts of war as my given profession (a realm I can honestly say I have a talent for; not trying to brag or intimidate, but I seem to be a born fighter by temperament). He told me to read the Book of Judges. Per the Bible, God occasionally sees fit to gift someone with the talents needed to learn the arts of war in order to protect the greater good. Please note I typically do my damnedest to keep my faith separated from everything else in my life (if the Lord sees fit to use me as his tool to convert someone to Christianity, He'll inspire them to ask me how to become Christian; until then, I live and let live to the best of my ability)., but I think of myself as a spiritual person. I'm just trying to explain how I reconcile my faith with my chosen profession. As an aside, a man I call "blood-brother" (he's one of only two people I think of as family outside of blood relations) is an atheist. If he and I can set our religious beliefs aside to be so close as to call one another "brother", why can't others? It's perhaps naive of me, but I truly wish more people were capable of that.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jun 2, 2013 3:06:50 GMT 1
@iron: Now, I've never claimed to have read the Bible or the Gospels in their entirety, and I am not actually a Christian, but I will say this: There is a world of difference between being a violent Militant aggressor, and being a good man who is a great leader who is willing to do violence if necessary. Look at your own career in the Military - you yourself are a good man, and you are in a job that might require you to end up in battle eventually... but you would never go around beating people up just for the love of violence... (and please please don't take offence to the example I just used - I mean no offence, I am trying to make a point). No offense taken. But I tire of people who seem to think that Jesus was a full-blown pacifict. He wasn't. He looked for the most peaceful solution, but would use violence if he had to (see him boot-stomping the people who desecrated the temple by making it into a market). I knew Jesus wasn't a full-on pacifist... but I also knew he would only employ violence (or visible anger and react accordingly) when truly provoked. Otherwise he tried to find the peaceful path. If I recall correctly, when he was being arrested in Gethsemane, one of his men attacked and cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest - and Jesus' reaction was to stop his men from attacking, and to heal the servant's wound... so, even while being arrested and taken to what he surely knew would be a long and torturous death, he promoted peace. As an aside, a man I call "blood-brother" (he's one of only two people I think of as family outside of blood relations) is an atheist. If he and I can set our religious beliefs aside to be so close as to call one another "brother", why can't others? It's perhaps naive of me, but I truly wish more people were capable of that. I've always wondered the same thing... the world is a large place, with many people of many faiths, but that does not mean we can't all get along.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jun 2, 2013 3:08:07 GMT 1
I propose that we all yell at Glow. He of all people seems to be getting off Scot-free on this!
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jun 2, 2013 3:08:55 GMT 1
Why yell at Glow? What did he do wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jun 2, 2013 3:12:22 GMT 1
I'm just kidding. But he did start it, and I think when you write an idea this sacrilegious and you are also Glow then you have to expect people to wonder if you were deliberately 'trolling'.
|
|