I thought Britain was under sharia law?

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm having some difficulty, finding where you "explicitly" asked me whether in my opinion Jesus was a pacifist or not.Which post # is it in.No, Setekh. This:"But, you're sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist?"is a statement, in which you are telling me what I am sure of, and that you put a question mark at the end of.If that were an actual question it should read more along the lines of:"But, are you sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist?" This is an actual question."This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these “cords” were made of twisted “rushes” or “reeds” - probably the ancient material for making ropes."Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible"And when he had made a scourge of small cords — εκσχοινιων, of rushes, rather, which he found strewed on the ground. This circumstance, seemingly slight, was inserted to show that the instrument could not be the cause of so wonderful an effect as is here mentioned. He drove them all out — Namely, out of the court of the temple; both the sheep and the oxen — Though it does not appear that he struck even them, much less any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them."Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments"Made a scourge of small cords. Rather as a symbol than for use. Drove them all out. He had the right to cleanse his Father's house and here first asserts his authority. The traffickers fled before his glance, awed by a superhuman majesty."People's New Testament"And when he had made a scourge , [ fragellion (Greek #5416) = flagellum] of small cords - likely some of the rushes spread for bedding, and when twisted used to tie up the cattle there collected. 'Not by this slender whip,' says Grotius admirably, 'but by divine majesty was the ejection accomplished, the whip being but a sign of the scourge of divine anger.'"Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged

You don't get to decide how questions are asked. So, no matter how you try to distort my words based on your personal assumptions that are not grounded on anything I did not tell you what your views are. I asked about them.Newsflash for you; just because someone else makes an argument and you present it in your place doesn't make them valid. Bible tells us that Jesus made a whip and drove everyone out. Four quotes you provide there merely makes their own assumptions. They are quite frankly trying to whitewash Jesus' actions in a way. It's funny though. Your position seems to be that Jesus didn't make a whip to whip people or animals. He fashioned one to symbolize God's scourge which would still be associated with violence. So, the worst case is that Jesus threatened people with violence. Not really pacifist-like.

[Aexodus]

Jesus wasn’t a warlord at any rate.

[PointOfViewGun]

Jesus wasn’t a warlord at any rate.

So? How does that relate to whether Jesus was a pacifist or not? Why the pissing contest?

[Infidel144]

]You don't get to decide how questions are asked.

I noted that I'm having some difficulty finding where you "explicitly" asked me whether in my opinion Jesus was a pacifist or not. I asked: Which post # is it in.
You did not answer. This is because you lied. You did not explicitly ask.

So, no matter how you try to distort my words based on your personal assumptions that are not grounded on anything I did not tell you what your views are. I asked about them.

Another lie. You ignorantly made a statement about my views and then put a question mark at the end of the statement. Now, since you have demonstrated that you are capable of asking an actual question (e.g.: "Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?"), it is obvious that you are trying to deflect from your ignorance of the Bible and that you made the claim that needs defending.

Newsflash for you; just because someone else makes an argument and you present it in your place doesn't make them valid.

Hmmm... "in your [my] place".... Odd, you asked a question, "Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?" (and a proper question, not a statement that you disengeuously masque with a question mark) and I gave you an answer from various accepted exegetical commentary on the Bible. You did not ask for my reasoning or argument (much like you did not "explicitly asked about" my opinion, even though you claimed you did). Which, even had you, my position would be irrelevant as it is your claim.
Are you upset that authorities disagree with your interpretation?

Bible tells us that Jesus made a whip and drove everyone out. Four quotes you provide there merely makes their own assumptions. They are quite frankly trying to whitewash Jesus' actions in a way.

Well, I, personally, would tend to put more credence in expert commentary than in that of someone who is Biblically ignorant.

It's funny though. Your position seems to be that Jesus didn't make a whip to whip people or animals. He fashioned one to symbolize God's scourge which would still be associated with violence. So, the worst case is that Jesus threatened people with violence. Not really pacifist-like.

Even more amusing is that you are again trying to create a position for me. This simply reinforces the fact that you were being dishonest when you claimed were asking me a question when you in reality made a statement that you tried to disguise with a question mark.
Hmmm.... Who to believe...

[PointOfViewGun]

I noted that I'm having some difficulty finding where you "explicitly" asked me whether in my opinion Jesus was a pacifist or not. I asked: Which post # is it in.
You did not answer. This is because you lied. You did not explicitly ask.
Another lie. You ignorantly made a statement about my views and then put a question mark at the end of the statement. Now, since you have demonstrated that you are capable of asking an actual question (e.g.: "Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?"), it is obvious that you are trying to deflect from your ignorance of the Bible and that you made the claim that needs defending.

Why did you need me to give you post number when you even quoted the question yourself and then tried to argue that it's not really a question? You even refer to it here. Accusing me of lying won't really change that simple fact.

Hmmm... "in your [my] place".... Odd, you asked a question, "Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?" (and a proper question, not a statement that you disengeuously masque with a question mark) and I gave you an answer from various accepted exegetical commentary on the Bible. You did not ask for my reasoning or argument (much like you did not "explicitly asked about" my opinion, even though you claimed you did). Which, even had you, my position would be irrelevant as it is your claim.
Are you upset that authorities disagree with your interpretation?
Well, I, personally, would tend to put more credence in expert commentary than in that of someone who is Biblically ignorant.
Even more amusing is that you are again trying to create a position for me. This simply reinforces the fact that you were being dishonest when you claimed were asking me a question when you in reality made a statement that you tried to disguise with a question mark.
Hmmm.... Who to believe...

You seem to be trying to dilute the discussion as much as possible while even attempting to make it personal as you ask me if I'm upset because you used an appeal to authority fallacy. Looks like you completely ceased trying to defend your objection. Not much to discuss then...

[Bethrezen]

Why is there a discussion about fictional characters like Jesus on a thread about Sharia law in Britain? At least Muhammad was real.

[mongrel]

The YPG is not proscribed, therefore they are not terrorists.

A bit like saying there is nothing wrong with Sinn Fein, back in the days of the troubles.

No, but it is predicted to be the future (13mio. muslims in 2050 according to the Pew Research Center).

I'm sure it does not.As for the picture, that organisation was proscibed years ago with the man in the centre and many of his followers jailed or killed. Practically a necropost.