Part 1
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has posted a "non-tract", authored by Dan Barker, which purports to show that Jesus, as presented in the Bible, is not worthy of respect or emulation, let alone worship. The non-tract can be found at http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php. What follows is a point-by-point response, intended to show that nearly every statement in the non-tract is misleading, irrelevant, or simply false. To avoid any possible accusation of copyright infringement, I will not reproduce their text here. The non-tract is divided into sections and largely composed of Bible references, so it should not be much of a chore to associate the responses with their corresponding points.
There is little to note in the opening remarks other than the allusion to the idea that the Jesus of the Bible never actually existed. This idea is expanded later in the non-tract.
The non-tract starts out right at Jesus' birth and centers on one of the most widespread distortions about that event, designed specifically to make Christmas more palatable to non-believers. It is commonly and commercially stated that the "message" of Christmas is "Peace On Earth", but that is not true. The message of Christmas is given in Luke 2:10 and 11, the birth of the promised Savior, who is Christ the Lord. "Peace On Earth" is not even the main message of the heavenly host in Luke 2:14, but rather, "Glory to God in the highest".
More importantly, the "peace" to which the angels refer is not in opposition to the "peace" of Matthew 10:34. In Greek, the word translated as "peace" has at least six different meanings. The angels told of the Messiah's peace, the peace between God and humanity, the way of salvation. Jesus spoke of peace between individuals, of harmony, specifically in the context of sending the disciples out among the towns and villages of Judea. Jesus came to bring spiritual peace among those who honored God or learned to do so, but does not flinch from stating the unpleasant truth that many people would not react peacefully. Practically all of the violence recorded in the New Testament and in early church history was perpetrated by non-believers against believers. Jesus was simply and compassionately warning his disciples of the resistance they would meet as they travelled.
In the same way, Luke 22:36 is not in conflict with the intended meaning of "Peace On Earth". Not only that, but it's not in conflict with the popular meaning, either. The quote is from the Last Supper, just before Jesus and the disciples go to Gethsemane. Jesus is not telling his followers to arm themselves for an offensive, but rather giving them a chance to defend themselves from the attack that he knows is coming "with swords and clubs" (v. 52). Two swords were enough for Jesus' purpose (v. 38), he rebuked a disciple who made a pre-emptive strike (v. 50-51), he healed the wounded enemy (v. 51), and made no attempt to defend himself or flee. Clearly, it is not Jesus who is unpeacable in this instance.
Similarly, the parable in Luke 19 is not a call to violent action and has nothing to do with "Peace On Earth" as properly understood. The context of the parable is set forth in v. 11: "because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." Jesus was explaining that he had to leave, that he would return, and that he expected the servants to put his "money" to work while he was gone. When he returned, having fully received his kingdom, there would be judgment. I admit this judgment is counter to the image many people have of Jesus. I admit that this does not seem to be the way a compassionate, human ruler should behave. However, we cannot judge the exalted Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, in those terms. We must attempt to understand this verse and its implications within the entire biblical framework. We must take into account that in the context of his coming kingdom, there are only two sides, God's and Satan's, and that people will be held eternally responsible for their choice of whom they serve. We must take into account the fact that before this judgment occurs, people will graciously be given opportunity after opportunity to avoid these consequences, and that this verse can be taken as a compassionate warning. We must take into account that the people who first heard this parable would have been greatly surprised by everything up to v. 27, but not by that verse itself. In their eyes, a traitor to the rightful king could expect no better than to be killed. Actually, there is a little bit of a surprise. While it may seem odd to us, the fact that the traitors would be killed in the presence of the king would be considered an act of respect. In the original hearer's ears, very sensitive to the concepts of honor and shame, this would be taken as a measure of compassion, beyond normal custom.
If the intent of the next statement were to criticize the Inquisition itself, we would have no disagreement, but it is being used to attach some blame for the Inquisition's practices on Jesus, which is completely unreasonable. While it is commonly recognized that John 15:6 was used by the Inquisition as support, it was far from being the only justification. It is also commonly recognized that the Inquisition distorted the intent of the verse, based on a number of misapplications. Actions based on an abuse of Scripture cannot reflect on Jesus himself, especially when those actions are separated from the words by over a millennium. Much is made of how other passages in the Bible have been used to justify anti-Semitism, both in the past and in the present. Statements similar to the non-tract's are commonly used in the same uncritical, irrational way to justify "anti-Christianism".
The context of Mark 3:5 makes it clear that Jesus is not looking with anger at mere "critics", as if all the Pharisees had done was write a nasty editorial. The Pharisees were looking for a way to accuse Jesus of Sabbath-breaking (v. 2) so they could take some action against him. The Pharisee's rules only allowed physicians to keep patients alive on the Sabbath, not make them better. While phrased as a question (v. 4), Jesus is rhetorically stating that the Law demands we do good on the Sabbath, saving lives rather than wasting them. His angry look at the Pharisees is due to the "hardness of their hearts" (v. 5). After Jesus heals the man's withered hand, the Pharisees respond by conspiring with their political enemies, the Herodians, to kill Jesus (v. 6). Jesus acted with compassion toward the man (conveniently not mentioned by the non-tract) and displayed an understandable anger at legalistic hypocrisy.
As John 2:15 is the only time in Jesus' life that he is reported to have taken violent action, it hardly seems rational to characterize him as "unpeaceable". We need to look at the entire context to understand what drove Jesus to this unusual behavior, rather than judging him on the basis of one verse. Again, we find that the non-tract has not described the situation accurately, as Jesus did not attack mere "merchants". A far more accurate word to describe these people is "extortionists" who were unfairly profiting from the religious devotion of the masses. The Law stated that all sacrifices had to be without fault or blemish. People could bring their own animals, but they had to be inspected by the priests. If they found fault with the animals, and they often did, the worshiper had to buy a sacrifice there at highly inflated prices. It was additionally required that monetary offerings be paid in temple-approved coinage. If a worshiper had none, the money could be changed -- for a fee. Jesus was moved to drastic action by this perversion of the Law and victimization of the poor occurring right on the doorstep of the Holy of Holies, the lone spot that could be considered to house the very presence of God. His extreme compassion for the people and his extreme zeal for his Father's honor (v. 17) overcame his peaceability in this one instance. However, it is interesting to note that no injuries are reported here. We do not know that Jesus actually whipped anyone, only that "he drove them all out of the temple".
Imagine that, sometime in the future, the son of a prominent freethinker came to his father's home, now a freethought museum, and found a number of people on the property selling religious trinkets and handing out salvation tracts. No one would think it unusual if the son became quite angry. No one would consider him unpeacable or uncompassionate to have the offending parties forcibly ejected by the local authorities, or even to take some sort of action on his own if the authorities wouldn't help him. The non-tract implicitly asserts that Jesus wasn't really within his rights, that he wasn't really defending his "Father's house" (v. 16). It also ignores the fact that there were other people there besides the "merchants". The victimized innocents who benefited from Jesus' actions would have considered him to be their compassionate champion.
The comment on Matthew 8:32 is not only false, it continues the pattern of hiding the fact that other parties were involved who received Jesus' respect and compassion. Jesus was met by two men who were possessed by demons (v. 28). Apparently knowing that Jesus is going to show compassion on the men, the demons wonder if they will be tortured (v. 29). The demons ask Jesus to drive them into the pigs in v. 31. Jesus simply says, "Go", whereupon the demons go into the pigs, the pigs rush into the water, and drown (v. 32). There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that Jesus himself was guilty of "drowning innocent animals". The plain text shows that the pigs drowned themselves or, at most, they were drowned by the demons. What we are to learn about Jesus from this passage is that he is both willing and able to exert power over the supernatural world, having seen in the previous stories in the chapter that he had power over natural forces (v. 13, 17, and 27).
The passage concerning the Canaanite woman and her daughter (Matthew 15:22-28) is admittedly difficult to fully understand but, once we do, we find no indication that Jesus bowed to any "pressure". This story is part of a connected series, tied together by food/bread imagery. The first part of the chapter (v. 1-20) describes one of Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. He makes the point that outward purity (represented by ritual washing before meals) was inconsequential compared to inner purity. The second part of the chapter (v. 21-28), the passage under attack here, shows that even "unclean" Gentiles can receive Jesus' message (his "bread") through faith. The last part of the chapter (v. 29-39) shows that Jesus' "bread" was more than sufficient for all peoples.
Let's look at the middle passage verse by verse. First, we must note that Jesus retired from Jewish lands to Tyre and Sidon (v. 21). Already, we have an indication that Jesus is somewhat immune to "pressure", or he wouldn't have been in Gentile lands at all. While there, the Canaanite woman, a member of a tribe of ancient enemies, comes to him asking for help for her daughter (v. 22). Significantly, this Gentile woman calls him "Lord, Son of David", a Messianic title. The next verse (v. 23) makes a point of Jesus saying nothing. He doesn't rebuke her, which may have been a way of encouraging or testing her. The disciples, not having learned all the lessons they needed to learn, urge him to send her away, but he doesn't. Instead, he articulates that his current priority is the Jews (v. 24). The woman's response is key to understanding the passage. She bows before him and again asks for help (v. 25). She has not been discouraged. She still has hope and faith that this man can help her daughter. Jesus places one more obstacle before her. The woman hears her people called dogs, not fit to share the children's bread (v. 26). If she were insincere in her belief, that could easily have prompted an angry retort. If she still had doubts, she might have left dejectedly. However, she apparently truly felt that she had no right to expect anything more than "crumbs" (v. 27). She accepts the statements that the Jews had priority and does not dispute her secondary status. She simply asserts her faith that there is more than enough "bread" to serve the needs of Jews and Gentiles. This is the faith Jesus commends (v. 28), a humble faith not born of expedience, nor simply acted out. His final words seem to burst forth as if he could not contain them any longer, as if he could brook no further delay. Again, there is no indication that Jesus performed this miracle because he felt "pressured" to do so, as if this woman could exert any real influence over a rabbi surrounded by his disciples. Indeed, we are told he did this despite pressure from his friends to send her away, despite social pressure to have nothing to do with Gentiles, and despite some indication that it was "outside mission parameters". The only explanation for this behavior is that Jesus' compassion for this woman was greater than these considerations. His seeming reluctance can be explained not only as a test of the woman's faith, but as the actions of a dutiful son attempting to follow the orders of his father. The non-tract, in order to make its point, removes the passage from its context and neglects to mention that Jesus had some constraints placed upon his actions here on earth.
The non-tract now makes an odd statement about the "promotion of eternal torment", as if the idea wouldn't have caught on if it weren't for Jesus. The fact is, however, that Jesus didn't introduce the idea of Hell and, ironically, all of these references to Hell tend to defeat the assertion that Jesus was not compassionate. In order to show that Jesus was uncompassionate when speaking of Hell, one would first have to show that his purpose in doing so was something other than earnestly trying to help people avoid such an awful fate. That assertion would be helped greatly by any indication that Jesus didn't truly believe Hell existed, or that he didn't truly believe his audience was at risk, or that he profited in any significant way from these speeches. The non-tract also attempts to give the impression that Jesus felt he needed to make "threats of violence" to get people to follow him. However, any evidence of that is completely lacking in the Gospels, all of it pointing determinedly in the other direction. In fact, the Bible makes it clear he did everything he could to warn people away from Hell, endured torture and death to defeat it, and ensured that no one would have to live in fear of it. As I drive down the metaphysical road of life, I appreciate those who have made an effort to let me know the bridge is out up ahead and warn me to avoid going over the cliff. I would consider those who kept that knowledge to themselves, or convinced me to ignore the warnings, to be lacking in compassion.
It would seem, then, that all the verses cited here, when examined in their proper context, actually reinforce the idea that Jesus was extremely concerned about the welfare of all people everywhere. If Jesus had been unpeaceable, he would have led an armed revolt to take up the kingship, as many of his followers expected him to do. If Jesus had been uncompassionate, he wouldn't have paid so much attention to the temporal and eternal needs of the people, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner alike, angering the religious elite enough that rival factions joined forces to kill him. He certainly wouldn't have given up his life so readily, with no resistance at all, unless he believed it would accomplish some great good, indeed, the greatest good ever.