Moderator: Global Moderator
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, in this case, if you are willing to put aside your preconceived notions and study Scripture, I believe you will come to the conclusion you are dead (pun intended) wrong.doodle wrote: That sounds like a cop-out, Mountaineer. Jesus and the prophets clearly told you what to do....yet Christians choose not to put their faith in God and instead follow man's laws.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.....Mountaineer wrote:You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, in this case, if you are willing to put aside your preconceived notions and study Scripture, I believe you will come to the conclusion you are dead (pun intended) wrong.doodle wrote: That sounds like a cop-out, Mountaineer. Jesus and the prophets clearly told you what to do....yet Christians choose not to put their faith in God and instead follow man's laws.
... Mountaineer
Well, Tolstoy in his book and many other scholars that you choose to ignore would disagree with that interpretation. Frankly, the Sermon on the Mount is pretty clear but you choose to reinterpret the Christs message so that it is more palatable with your own desires. That is understandable, but stop calling yourself a follower of Christ then if you refuse to live by his tenants. If I slap you on the right cheek, I expect you turn toward me with the left.Xan wrote: Doodle, you're right that Christians fail to live up to the example of Christ. Everyone does. Christians, though, are the ones who recognize this, and know that their only hope is to "ride his coattails" so to speak.
However, of course Christians (and everyone) should want to follow his example, so your accusations would carry some weight if true. But they're not: the Bible itself endorses capital punishment, the civil justice system, etc. See for example: http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html (which I just found with a quick Google). The verses condemning judgment (and note, not all of them do!) are primarily concerned with people holding themselves out as spiritually superior to others.
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Again, expecting followers to be 100% faithful to their spiritual leader's most extreme teachings--even those that got him killed--seems unreasonable. If they could reach that level of spiritual power, they wouldn't be followers, they'd be leaders. That people look up to spiritual leaders whose teachings and ethics they nonetheless fall short of doesn't make them bad people or bad followers.doodle wrote: I agree, but then dont say you are a follower of Christ when you refuse to follow his teachings....
If you are following someone and they say "turn right" and you turn left....that would be the definition of a bad follower. The problem is that most followers don't really have faith in Christs word or God. Deep down inside they are full of doubt. That is perfectly OK and understandable. I would just prefer them to be honest about it instead of acting so righteous all the damn time.Pointedstick wrote:Again, expecting followers to be 100% faithful to their spiritual leader's most extreme teachings--even those that got him killed--seems unreasonable. If they could reach that level of spiritual power, they wouldn't be followers, they'd be leaders. That people look up to spiritual leaders whose teachings and ethics they nonetheless fall short of doesn't make them bad people or bad followers.doodle wrote: I agree, but then dont say you are a follower of Christ when you refuse to follow his teachings....
I'd like to think that I would. That's personal. What does that have to do with the system of civil government?doodle wrote:Well, Tolstoy in his book and many other scholars that you choose to ignore would disagree with that interpretation. Frankly, the Sermon on the Mount is pretty clear but you choose to reinterpret the Christs message so that it is more palatable with your own desires. That is understandable, but stop calling yourself a follower of Christ then if you refuse to live by his tenants. If I slap you on the right cheek, I expect you turn toward me with the left.
But we're not talking about following directions or assembling a piece of furniture or something. We're talking about spirituality. If it was just a matter of scrupulously reading the books and following all the teachings, it would be easy. But the teachings are often contradictory with what the book says, or may even contradict themselves. And they will certainly contradict subsequent interpretations, as filtered through political and social contexts that are constantly changing. You can use these difficulties to perhaps criticize a religion itself, but criticizing individual people for failing to follow what pretty much can't be followed seems cruel to me.doodle wrote: If you are following someone and they say "turn right" and you turn left....that would be the definition of a bad follower. The problem is that most followers don't really have faith in Christs word or God. Deep down inside they are full of doubt. That is perfectly OK and understandable. I would just prefer them to be honest about it instead of acting so righteous all the damn time.
Xan,The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly capable of. They touched me. I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too, that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering. I said to myself, ‘Well, I will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again. I will give up my coat – they shall take my all. They shall even take away my life. Yet, life is given to me. Why should I thus lose it? This cannot be what Christ requires of us.’ Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’ But as soon as I comprehended the meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and definitely what He means. He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other; after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back. ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil. Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’
Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept. I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering. Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’? Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil. Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’ These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man), thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way. Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’ What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this? As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.
You shouldn't make preparations to protect anything...again, do you not trust in your Lord? Are these words not clear? I can understand someone striking back in the heat of the moment, but for you to go out in a premeditated way to buy guns for self defense is completely anti-Christ.Saw your next reply: of COURSE we're full of doubt; we're sinners. "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief". It's absolutely true that most (all?) of our problems are a result of not believing, not trusting, enough. Nobody's claiming to be perfect.
As far as guns: So you expect Christians to be completely against the system of civil government, and at the same time, to entrust the defense of their homes and property exclusively to that system, AND give up any potential means of resistance against it, should that become necessary?
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles
Actually, you are picking and choosing. You are referring to obscure scriptures mostly out of the old testament which portrays God as a very maniacal, cruel, vindictive SOB. I would rather follow Satan than the God of the old testament.Xan wrote: You're picking and choosing. Here's a more thorough treatment of the subject of biblical self-defense:
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
I can't really stop you from following Satan instead of trying to understand God's word, since that's what you'd prefer to do, but I can tell you that nothing is as simplistic as you're trying to make it.And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to practice turning the other cheek and not resist evil when confronted by violence during his Sermon on the Mount and years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough". More commonly, the phrase is understood to mean Jesus has had enough of the topic[1]
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”? The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”? “That’s enough!”? he replied.
—Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[1] As Ellul explains:
The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[2]
This theory is further substantiated by Peter when Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of Malchus, one of the priests' servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52)[1]
Jameisson, Fausset and Brown unabridged indicates, ...And He said to them, It is enough- not 'Two swords will suffice,' but 'Enough of this for the present.,The warning had been given, and preparation for coming dangers hinted at; but as His meaning had not been apprehended in the comprehensive sense in which it was meant, He wished to leave the subject.[3]
Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary:Revised Third Edition states:
35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. 'That is enough', said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love.[4]
That seems like a stretch to me. He specifically tells them to go and acquire weapons, so being surprised when they do so doesn't seem to make. I'm no biblical scholar, but what that passage seems to me to be saying is that only after having internalized the message of not needing material goods to fulfill a spiritual purpose ('And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing."'), it then becomes appropriate to use them for earthly ones (' "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me').doodle wrote: Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary:Revised Third Edition states:
35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. 'That is enough', said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love.[4]
Im not saying what is right and wrong. I happen to believe that those don't exist (at least in a universal sense)...Im presently a nihilist. Im simply pointing out that you cannot be pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and a follower of Christs message at the same time. The hypocrisy and contradiction is what I am criticizing. If you want to be pro-gun FINE! But at least have a philosophy that is somewhat internally consistent.At least, that's the way I see it. And the fact that I see it in a different way from you and those other guys only illustrates my point that this stuff is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By criticizing Christians for not following your own personal interpretation of Christianity, are you not yourself guilty of the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing when they criticize members of other denominations or religions for having it all wrong?
How likely is it an omnipotent being would direct humans to write so much contradicting stuff and call it his word?Pointedstick wrote: At least, that's the way I see it. And the fact that I see it in a different way from you and those other guys only illustrates my point that this stuff is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By criticizing Christians for not following your own personal interpretation of Christianity, are you not yourself guilty of the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing when they criticize members of other denominations or religions for having it all wrong?
Exodus has nothing to do with Christs message. The Old Testament is an insane book. God is the most vindictive, jealous, horrible thing.....a far cry from the loving God of the New Testament.Xan wrote: Yes, that may be a better reading of that text.
But unquestionably, Jesus certainly could have told everybody never to carry a sword, and he didn't. He told Peter to put it "in its place", not to "throw it away". The Sermon on the Mount reference is about personal relationships, not about how to treat the thief in the night from Exodus.
And self-defense isn't failing to trust God any more than working is failing to trust God for providing.
interactive processing wrote: definitely open to interpretation... but if i had to read into it, i would not count that as a instruction against self defense only as one against aggression, "put the sword back in its place" (its scabbard where it is close by if called for) "for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (don't go out looking for fights, causing fights or swinging it at every little slight or you will die by it) IMHO... religious and personal interpretations may vary
doodle wrote:Im not saying what is right and wrong. I happen to believe that those don't exist (at least in a universal sense)...Im presently a nihilist. Im simply pointing out that you cannot be pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and a follower of Christs message at the same time. The hypocrisy and contradiction is what I am criticizing. If you want to be pro-gun FINE! But at least have a philosophy that is somewhat internally consistent.At least, that's the way I see it. And the fact that I see it in a different way from you and those other guys only illustrates my point that this stuff is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By criticizing Christians for not following your own personal interpretation of Christianity, are you not yourself guilty of the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing when they criticize members of other denominations or religions for having it all wrong?
Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion. (Deut 22:25).
It's better to keep it ideas rather than make it too personal with a topic like this.doodle wrote: Xan,
Do you follow all the other asinine rules of God in the old testament with the same fervor that you use with the "thief in the night"?
Do we have a conversion chart for how much a shekel is now in USD?doodle wrote: How about this one on rape? God makes it pretty clear that if I rape someone who isn't engaged I just need to pay her father 50 shekels....
Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion. (Deut 22:25).
New or old? The Israeli government destroyed the old one with hyperinflation.Kshartle wrote:Do we have a conversion chart for how much a shekel is now in USD?doodle wrote: How about this one on rape? God makes it pretty clear that if I rape someone who isn't engaged I just need to pay her father 50 shekels....
Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion. (Deut 22:25).
