Jesus being mean

[mikbone]

In the scriptures there are a few instances where Jesus used harsh words when dealing with people or groups who perceived themselves as followers of God.

Vipers, lukewarm, etc.

He also cleaned out the Temple grounds.

But he was always very respectful of non-members and even the Romans.

Can you think of any time he offended non-members?

The fig tree comes to mind.

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

Edited January 9 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

49 minutes ago, mikbone said:

 

Can you think of any time he offended non-members?

No, but I can think of a ton of passages that have to do with forgiveness and compassion. 

[Anddenex]

If we are strict with interpretation, the Canaanite (not considered a member) woman was not a member and most people would be offended at being likened to a dog at a master's table.

But she took no offense, accepted the metaphor, continued with the metaphor, and her daughter was made hole. I'm thinking, most people would be offended at this type of straight forward analogy.

 

[prisonchaplain]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

If we are strict with interpretation, the Canaanite (not considered a member) woman was not a member and most people would be offended at being likened to a dog at a master's table.

But she took no offense, accepted the metaphor, continued with the metaphor, and her daughter was made hole. I'm thinking, most people would be offended at this type of straight forward analogy.

 

Jesus' response to the Canaanite woman is the stuff of some controversy. A simple Google search of, "Was Jesus racist towards the Canaanite woman?" brought loads of response. Thankfully, most defended Jesus' answer. Several points bear remembering:

1. Matthew was written to the Jews. The encounter Messiah had highlighted a theme that replays in the early church--Gentiles, non-Jews, often expressed greater faith than Jesus' fellow Jews. 

2. When Jesus says that the food is for Jews, not for dogs, He is not speaking in the Asian sense (most cuss words include the word "dog"). Instead, he's referring to the family pet. The woman's response is that yes, the children get food from the table. However, these children share with the family pet--the dog--whether by accidentally or intentionally dropping food for the dogs to lap up. 

3. Jesus is so impressed with the woman's faith that he grants her everything she asked for--total healing!

The OP is correct. Jesus did not go after Gentiles to offend them. However, He often riled up his fellow Jews for their lack of faith. 

I would argue that in my setting Jesus would be far blunter with the chaplain than he would with the incarcerated sisters. 

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

A simple Google search of, "Was Jesus racist towards the Canaanite woman?" brought loads of response.

Honestly, what an idiotic question. Was Jesus racist? It's just a stupid question, brain-dead stupid, six ways from Sunday. It's the kind of question that literally does not deserve any consideration, or frankly even an answer.

[mikbone]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Honestly, what an idiotic question. Was Jesus racist? It's just a stupid question, brain-dead stupid, six ways from Sunday. It's the kind of question that literally does not deserve any consideration, or frankly even an answer.

Of course not.

Everyone knows that only white people can be racist…

Be real.

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

Can you think of any time he offended non-members?

He was not sent to the Gentiles, but to the House of Israel.  How often did He even interact with them?  Very infrequently.  His primary mission (in His preaching) was not to preach to or condemn or convert any Gentiles.  His primary mission was to bring the House of Israel into the new dispensation.

Did he ever offend Gentiles?  I don't know.  If I searched, I'm sure I could find something.  But if His only reason to condemn or offend (if you can call it that) was when he was specifically preaching about obedience to the Law of Moses and how it was a preparatory law for the New Covenant.  He condemned Jews for not realizing what the true meaning of the Law was.

Gentiles wouldn't even understand what He was saying.  He wasn't talking with them.

Edited January 10 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

In our modern society, the light of truth is perhaps the greatest act of offense towards certain individuals.  Many are so offended by the light of truth that the only acceptable use of the words “Jesus Christ”m to them, is to utter a profanity.  This is not new, in my lifetime – it was beem a very common occurrencem especially what I experienced while in the army.   Sadly, this is not an uncommon behavior even among professed Christians – including LDS.  It is possible that someone on the forum finds my just made statement in my post somewhat offensive.

I thought to look up the word “offense”:

1.     a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act.

2.     annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one's standards or principles.

 

In the Gospel of John there are a number of debates that take place between Jesus and various Jews (Scribes and Pharisees).  Obviously because of these debates and other occurrences offence was taken because they eventually sought to have Jesus put to death.  On a few occasions they were so upset in the moment that they attempted to kill him on the spot.  One of the scriptural occasions parallels a doctrine somewhat unique to the LDS teachings.  As I have had discourse with many non-LDS Christians this particular teaching is of greatest offense to them and a primary reason why we are not considered Christian to them.  This is in John 10 beginning with verse 22:

Some background.  Some Jews come to Jesus near the temple and ask him to tell them plainly if he is the Christ (Messiah).   Jesus responds with some amazing pure unmistakable logic which concludes with the very logical statement that he and His Father are one.  The Jews are so offended that they take up stone against Jesus to kill him.  Jesus responds immediately with the logic asking which of his works offended them.  The Jews say it is not because of works but because he is a man claiming he can become or is a G-d.  To be exact making the claim that he is “one” with the Father.  Jesus clearly points out with unmistakable logic that the scriptures (written in Jewish law) clearly point out that “Ye are g-ds” (verse 34).   They were so offended that they attempted to again “take” him – presumably to kill him.

One last point – for me --- I do not believe anyone should be offended by things said but rather by things that are actually done.  See first meaning of offense.  We can learn a lot about someone when they are allowed to speak freely.  Often when people, especially those driven primarily by emotion over logic speak freely they most accurately display their thinking process.  This is perhaps one of the most important reason that we ought to champion “free speech”.  So we can determine (judge if you must); if they lie to themselves such that there is conflict between what they say and what they do.

On the internet we cannot know what, in reality, a person does – only what they say.  I do not see much logic in being offended by what is said on the internet - especially what is said somewhat anonymously.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In our modern society, the light of truth is perhaps the greatest act of offense towards certain individuals.  Many are so offended by the light of truth that the only acceptable use of the words “Jesus Christ”m to them, is to utter a profanity.  This is not new, in my lifetime – it was beem a very common occurrencem especially what I experienced while in the army.   Sadly, this is not an uncommon behavior even among professed Christians – including LDS.  It is possible that someone on the forum finds my just made statement in my post somewhat offensive.

 

Not me.  You can't preach the gospel anymore without someone telling you to focus on forgiveness and compassion and stop teaching that we're expected to keep our covenants because it hurts their feelings.

[Traveler]

40 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not me.  You can't preach the gospel anymore without someone telling you to focus on forgiveness and compassion and stop teaching that we're expected to keep our covenants because it hurts their feelings.

You should tell them that it hurts your feelings that they do not respect your commitments to sacred covenants.   I am most amazed with LDS that are offended with my Sabbath covenants - especially in-laws that want to have a family and friends get together (for mission farewells and other things) and skip (undesirable? – to them) church meetings on the Sabbath.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

LDS that are offended

A lot of times people aren’t offended when you think they are. We put people in boxes because it helps us understand them. It also takes no effort, makes us feel good and moral, and reinforces our own views. So it’s a win-win-win for ourselves. 

We like to think everyone who doesn’t like or approve of us is just “offended easily” but in reality, usually the people claiming that everyone else is an “easily offended snowflake” are  the most thin skinned people out there-but they never see it.  

Edited January 10 by LDSGator

[Still_Small_Voice]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He was not sent to the Gentiles, but to the House of Israel.  How often did He even interact with them?  Very infrequently.  His primary mission (in His preaching) was not to preach to or condemn or convert any Gentiles.  His primary mission was to bring the House of Israel into the new dispensation.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

III Nephi Chapter 15

[Anddenex]

20 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The OP is correct. Jesus did not go after Gentiles to offend them. However, He often riled up his fellow Jews for their lack of faith.

Thank you for the insight regarding the Canaanite woman. I'm in agreement with your interpretation, it is how I have interpreted it and understood it. The OP's question though wasn't if Jesus went after Gentiles, but more along the lines did he offend them: Can you think of any time he offended non-members?

Offense is often personal perception. I don't think Jesus went after the Pharisees, Scribes, or Saducees either. His response in their direction was in direct response of them going after him. His responses were for them to think, become more aware, and then hopefully repent.

With what little we have of what Jesus said, the unknown, we can't really say what he said to every Gentile or non-member he met. If a Gentile came after Jesus like the Pharisees I don't think he would have had any problem giving a similar speech to them also.

It wasn't just the Pharisees Jesus was strong with words toward. I mean he even told his first and foremost apostle Peter to "Get back Satan." I mean, that isn't a compliment. I can't think of any scenario where Jesus, from the scriptures we have, were he went specifically to go after and attack/offend any Jew.

Edited January 10 by Anddenex

[prisonchaplain]

On 1/9/2024 at 7:04 PM, Vort said:

Honestly, what an idiotic question. Was Jesus racist? It's just a stupid question, brain-dead stupid, six ways from Sunday. It's the kind of question that literally does not deserve any consideration, or frankly even an answer.

I get that. Yet, skeptics ask it--a lot. Of course, some are not skeptics, they are opponents. I feel the same way about those who question God's justice because of the doctrine of hell. Nevertheless, thoughtful answers exist because even the most foolish of questions, if offered in sincerity, can be the means by which some search for God.

If I am convinced that Jesus was racist, then I wouldn't ask the question. If I'm truly confused by the story and I do ask the question, might it not indicate that I want to believe. I want to be reassured that Jesus was not racist or ethnocentric--that he really was the loving, forgiving Savior that I hoped He was. 

[Vort]

God created the races. What would it even mean for God to be "racist"? It's a stooopid question that no adult with two or more brain cells to rub together should ever ask.

[LDSGator]

Ignore. 

Edited January 11 by LDSGator

[ZealoulyStriving]

A couple years ago as I read about the cleansing of the temple I noticed Christ's mercy in the incident, specifically for the sellers of doves. The money changers I'm sure kept immaculate records, so they could easily sort out the mess later. Herd animals are often marked in some way and/or know their owner's voice, so they could be gathered.

But the doves... If they scattered they would be lost and income lost. What did Jesus do:

"And (Jesus) said unto them that sold doves, 'Take these things hence...'"

He wasn't there being mean, trying to destroy their livelihoods. They just needed to do it somewhere else.

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

[Vort]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:16 PM, ZealoulyStriving said:

A couple years ago as I read about the cleansing of the temple I noticed Christ's mercy in the incident, specifically for the sellers of doves. The money changers I'm sure kept immaculate records, so they could easily sort out the mess later. Herd animals are often marked in some way and/or know their owner's voice, so they could be gathered.

But the doves... If they scattered they would be lost and income lost. What did Jesus do:

"And (Jesus) said unto them that sold doves, 'Take these things hence...'"

He wasn't there being mean, trying to destroy their livelihoods. They just needed to do it somewhere else.

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

Christ's whip was for those acting literally as moneychangers in the temple. The dove sellers were acting, perhaps innocently, as providers of the needed sacrifice. They may have thought they were acting acceptably, not much different from today's Saints renting temple clothing at the temple.

[Phoenix_person]

On 1/10/2024 at 10:33 PM, Vort said:

God created the races. What would it even mean for God to be "racist"? It's a stooopid question that no adult with two or more brain cells to rub together should ever ask.

To you, someone who believes that Jesus was God, it seems like a stupid question. Nearly 70% of the world's population do NOT believe that Jesus was a divine being.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Jesus was racist. There's no reasonable evidence for that. I'm just saying that a majority of people on the planet don't hold the views of him that you do, views that make the idea of Christ being racist inconceivable.

I forget the exact reference(s), but there are stories in the apocryphal "gospels" that tell of a young Jesus using his divine powers to enact retribution on youth that had teased him. I know that isn't worth much because it isn't canon, but it's an interesting tidbit for those who believe that apocryphal texts have merit.

Edited March 2 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Nearly 70% of the world's population do NOT believe that Jesus was a divine being.

Good point. Living in America we can delude ourselves into grossly overestimating how big Christianity is. I believe Christ is Lord, but apparently I’m in the minority worldwide. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

To you, someone who believes that Jesus was God, it seems like a stupid question. Nearly 70% of the world's population do NOT believe that Jesus was a divine being.

Irrelevant. Within the context of the New Testament account, Jesus is divine. To ignore that context is not merely to cherry-pick one's evidence, it is to render the words meaningless. You might as well say that Jehovah was "sexist". Not merely stupid, but self-contradictory, regardless of one's personal philosophy or religious beliefs. 

Edited March 2 by Vort

[Ironhold]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Irrelevant. Within the context of the New Testament account, Jesus is divine. To ignore that context is not merely to cherry-pick one's evidence, it is to render the words meaningless. You might as well say that Jehovah was "sexist". Not merely stupid, but self-contradictory, regardless of one's personal philosophy or religious beliefs. 

It's a matter of seeing things from the perspective of another and adjusting how we talk to them accordingly. 

For example, I once heard a speaker talk about how they had to be careful using the word "Father" because they were assigned to an inner city area that had alarmingly high rates of familial violence and abuse. Many of the people they tried to preach to had a *lot* of baggage associated with the word accordingly.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

On 1/10/2024 at 9:33 PM, Vort said:

God created the races. What would it even mean for God to be "racist"? It's a stooopid question that no adult with two or more brain cells to rub together should ever ask.

God is very clearly racist AND sexist. I mean, first, he's white (which means he's racist). Second, he's the power class (racist). Third, He restricted the priesthood and other thing by race. He specifically declared a certain race "My people". I mean if that doesn't fit the modern definition of racist.... And let's not even get started with traditional marriage, polygamy and the patriarchy. 

Edited March 8 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

On 3/2/2024 at 12:12 PM, Ironhold said:

It's a matter of seeing things from the perspective of another and adjusting how we talk to them accordingly. 

For example, I once heard a speaker talk about how they had to be careful using the word "Father" because they were assigned to an inner city area that had alarmingly high rates of familial violence and abuse. Many of the people they tried to preach to had a *lot* of baggage associated with the word accordingly.

This is an interesting thing to think about. I accept what you're saying as valid. But.... I also have to ask myself.... how can one fight falsehoods without truth?

It's an interesting challenge. If one cannot respect father-dom how can they respect our Father? It's absolutely requisite. And we'd get nowhere by not teaching them the truth of that matter. But...tact, timing, line-upon-line, etc.... Those things matter.

It's interesting.

[LDSGator]

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is an interesting thing to think about. I accept what you're saying as valid. But.... I also have to ask myself.... how can one fight falsehoods without truth?

 

That’s accurate, and it’s also accurate to say it’s very naive if someone thinks they can be spread truth by being abrasive, obnoxious or insulting. If I walk up to you and say “Hey, only an idiot doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon.” You virtually guarantee that the person will never open a Book of Mormon in their lives. 
 

Church members like to believe that how you present yourself and how you dress matters. That’s partially why missionaries can’t light up cigarettes in ripped jeans and vulgar t shirts. However, a guy in a suit with a clean haircut calling people who don’t agree with him “stupid”  is far more damaging. 

Edited March 9 by LDSGator