Evidence for God from Science

Many often see any anger or aggression whether in words or action as wrong in a more socially "enlightened" and politically correct Westernised societies.

If someone looks to be aggressive, the natural inclination of many in our era of political correctness is to condemn the person who looks overbearing regardless of truth of the matter and actual correctness.

I've particularly been relating this to my discussion style. My approach varies depending upon the person but I see myself as having a very open and honest forthrightness, sometimes brutally so... but my concern I'd like to think is always for ultimately furthering the Gospel and truth. I'm always wondering, did I apply the right force, was I too weak in my words, was I too strong in my words...

It wasn't always this way. In the past I'd often always end up playing passive-manipulative games to get my point across (not purposefully, but for the sake of political correctness and civility). I'd like to think I'm often a lot more forthright in online discussions. Someone on the opposing end is certainly going to know where I stand from the get go. On occasion, this may look overbearing to some, but over time in my years of debating online I've realised keeping things always pleasant and backing off upon conflict isn't always best. Some have an outer shell, and the only way to leave a rock in their shoe is to be very confrontational and strong. On the other hand, meeker-minded persons who are more emotional respond better to more heart-felt discussion.

Perhaps I'm imagining any real change in my style, but certainly I care less for being politically sensitive to all than I once did in the past. I'll tend to respect a person, until they either show themselves malicious in nature to Christ, myself or others. And then, once I see they've thrown down their gauntlet it's gloves off. First I need to see evidence that they've either shown themselves malicious in nature to Christ, myself or others. As such, those I confront are obviously generally going to be Atheists, though I attempt remain pleasant to those (albeit not disagreeable beliefs themselves) who both appear sincere, honest and respectful... until they display otherwise.

Those who have seen my postings over the years may have noticed this change in myself, for better or for worse. I too, have noticed a big change in others, even a reverse change. Some who were very overly rigid, have now learnt to let things go for the sake of civility and the overall picture. It requires much wisdom to know when to use a hammer or just some light tapping and perhaps some polishing... wisdom I may not always have, but I do my best to understand the person I'm talking to first and apply the measure I feel is relevant.

Anyway, this perhaps started... because I was simply reflecting upon Jesus when he overturned the tables in the temple. Often left out, is that Jesus actually fashioned a whip out of cords to drive out the people, sheep and cattle (John 2:15). This left me wondering what many today would make of such things. Today, Jesus would likely even be arrested. And yet, many Christians prefer to shy away from this display of aggression in Jesus's character, because any aggression whether justified or not is automatically often seen as wrong.

Not sure where I really wanted to take this... just thinking aloud and placing some thoughts on the table.

I like the gentle approach but I think having righteous anger can be justified in certain circumstances in the real world and online, but like in the case of Jesus doing some whipping and table tipping it has to be a circumstance that is way out of line before you can get angry.

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Matthew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

I think when dealing with atheists we need to grow thicker skins, we seem to get riled way to easily.

Edit. forgot to answer your question. Jesus would be judged the same way as he was before when he first came, he would be called a liar, law breaker, heretic etc... and then be executed again

Kurieuo wrote:Many often see any anger or aggression whether in words or action as wrong in a more socially "enlightened" and politically correct Westernised societies.

If someone looks to be aggressive, the natural inclination of many in our era of political correctness is to condemn the person who looks overbearing regardless of truth of the matter and actual correctness.

I've particularly been relating this to my discussion style. My approach varies depending upon the person but I see myself as having a very open and honest forthrightness, sometimes brutally so... but my concern I'd like to think is always for ultimately furthering the Gospel and truth. I'm always wondering, did I apply the right force, was I too weak in my words, was I too strong in my words...

It wasn't always this way. In the past I'd often always end up playing passive-manipulative games to get my point across (not purposefully, but for the sake of political correctness and civility). I'd like to think I'm often a lot more forthright in online discussions. Someone on the opposing end is certainly going to know where I stand from the get go. On occasion, this may look overbearing to some, but over time in my years of debating online I've realised keeping things always pleasant and backing off upon conflict isn't always best. Some have an outer shell, and the only way to leave a rock in their shoe is to be very confrontational and strong. On the other hand, meeker-minded persons who are more emotional respond better to more heart-felt discussion.

Perhaps I'm imagining any real change in my style, but certainly I care less for being politically sensitive to all than I once did in the past. I'll tend to respect a person, until they either show themselves malicious in nature to Christ, myself or others. And then, once I see they've thrown down their gauntlet it's gloves off. First I need to see evidence that they've either shown themselves malicious in nature to Christ, myself or others. As such, those I confront are obviously generally going to be Atheists, though I attempt remain pleasant to those (albeit not disagreeable beliefs themselves) who both appear sincere, honest and respectful... until they display otherwise.

Those who have seen my postings over the years may have noticed this change in myself, for better or for worse. I too, have noticed a big change in others, even a reverse change. Some who were very overly rigid, have now learnt to let things go for the sake of civility and the overall picture. It requires much wisdom to know when to use a hammer or just some light tapping and perhaps some polishing... wisdom I may not always have, but I do my best to understand the person I'm talking to first and apply the measure I feel is relevant.

Anyway, this perhaps started... because I was simply reflecting upon Jesus when he overturned the tables in the temple. Often left out, is that Jesus actually fashioned a whip out of cords to drive out the people, sheep and cattle (John 2:15). This left me wondering what many today would make of such things. Today, Jesus would likely even be arrested. And yet, many Christians prefer to shy away from this display of aggression in Jesus's character, because any aggression whether justified or not is automatically often seen as wrong.

Not sure where I really wanted to take this... just thinking aloud and placing some thoughts on the table.

You're a big meanie.

The same way as before, very few people would notice a homeless, radical person , with a handful of disciples who would happen to be manual labor at best...claiming that he is the son of God. Kings and leaders would be unaware of him and so would be a lot other people. He'd be called crazy, idiot and a cult leader, and his followers would be considered a cult.

Infact if you think upon this, this is kind of scary.

However if he comes like a king as revelation spells it out, then that is a different story.

Why did Jesus drive out the money lenders and who gave him that right?
Sometimes we forget that Our Lord wasn't just "some guy" that had a religious agenda, He is the Son of God.

Re: Jesus, I suppose build off that he's not just "some guy"... when taken in context we here have a Rabbi amongst his own Jewish people.

There is often talk today about particular Christian churches commercializing on Christianity. Whether such is right or wrong, and this even happens on the premises of the church.

There must have been some social recognition within the Jewish faith that the commercialization of the temple wasn't right. It make a joke out of God's place, and in the eyes of those in charge of the temple perhaps turned it into something "more practical" since it brought them money. It was like an internal dispute, and that is perhaps how Rome saw matters.

As you say, I think it can't be lost that Jesus wasn't just some schmuck who did this. In context, he was a respected Rabbi amongst the people and known for his miracles. He was considered to be the Messiah, the person who would save Israel and bring them back into their kingdom. Keep in mind, the people had been proclaiming this and venerating Him as Jesus entered Jerusalem. And now Jesus threw the gauntlet down to all the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes stirring them into action, challenging their authority, their practices and knowledge (as becomes clear in the verses after).

So this act seems purposeful and deliberate. After entering Jerusalem on a colt, Jesus left. Only to return against shortly after to enter the Temple. It was a purposeful act that no doubt contributed to His eventual crucifixion schemed by those he challenged. He was just doing what needed to be done to secure His final act.

As for us, I suppose this just shows we ourselves can't always ask what would Jesus do, as though we have the same rights.