Miyamoto Musashi also thought two swords was enough.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
A couple scriptures:
�?�¢?? If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong.
[/quote]
Self defence is not “wrong”.
Operative word: revenge. Self defence is not “revenge.” It’s what people instinctively do to protect themselves and others from harm. Preventing harm is “good.”
Does not mean, it is forbidden to defend yourself from violent attack.
Nothing about self defence being wrong.
Again, operative word is "revenge".
Self defence is not “repaying with evil.” It is not “evil” to defend yourself.
SM, I reslect your mind,but your response doesn’t cut it. I stated boldly that many Christians do not do what the Bible teaches and I would prove it with scripture,so,yes my opinion is different than many Christians,and my proofs are the Bible. I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. And there are more,like the one about being wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Its the Bible saying Christians should live like. that these are not my ideas.Confusion
[/quote]
I disagree strongly with your interpretation of scripture as do the overwhelming majority of Christians. There is a world of difference between being peaceful and not vengeful on the one hand and refusing to defend oneself when attacked. I consider myself a man of peace and avoid violence but I’m not going to just stand there when someone is attacking me or my loved ones.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your “religion,” as it were, is an old one. You do know that?
[/quote]
Oldest one there is, I’d say.[/quote]
Well, now I need to know…[/quote]
Funny you should put it thataway. God is unknowable.[/quote]
Fixed
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I figure this is a call out,but I like to keep it real. Cool.[/quote]
I’m not calling you out. I challenging your assertion. There is nothing personal here.
Why don’t you think Christians should defend themselves? What about accepting Christ as your lord and savior suddenly means you can’t survive?
What if it was a bear attack?
None of those are assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, which would require it be made before 1986, and you paying the tax stamp. (It’s Mossberg, btw.) Unless, I guess, the SKS was select fire, but as far as I know, select fire SKS is about as common as a pair of hot lesbians that want to use you for your dick in a 3 way. To which I would expect you to have to pay a lot more than $50 for. [/quote]
Plus he says he’s in Australia.
I call bullshit on either the guns or the location.[/quote]
this actually surprised me. I guess I will get used to it. Bought from cousin who was worried about me and y2k. It was a carbine semi auto,so if I used assault rifle incorrectly,well…am an American living in Oz since 2008. they have very few guns here
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Miyamoto Musashi also thought two swords was enough.[/quote]
Lol. The Book of Five Rings. “the way is in training”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
Apparently Jesus endorsed the international socialist program because he and his disciples lived a communal lifestyle. Communal lifestyle = advocates a stateless, international “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the abolition of all private property. You can make Jesus endorse just about anything with a few verses out if context and an elaborate imagination.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The second sentence seems awfully close to don’t defend yourself and take your beating like a man.
[/quote]
Nah, it is revenge. It doesn’t say “don’t prevent him from striking you, in order to turn the other cheek.”
It basically says in rap slang “MofO got the drop on you? Let him hot you again. Because you da fool who let him at you in the first place.”[/quote]
LMAO. That must be the urban translation. Good one
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
Apparently Jesus endorsed the international socialist program because he and his disciples lived a communal lifestyle. Communal lifestyle = advocates a stateless, international “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the abolition of all private property. You can make Jesus endorse just about anything with a few verses out if context and an elaborate imagination.
[/quote]
Yeah, “Being Liberal” has been using jesus to attack capitalism and “right wingers” for a long while now.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
The cheek sentence seems pretty close. I’ll defer to you all on “context,” but the plain text seems to support allowing yourself to get struck by a violence doer.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The second sentence seems awfully close to don’t defend yourself and take your beating like a man.
[/quote]
Nah, it is revenge. It doesn’t say “don’t prevent him from striking you, in order to turn the other cheek.”
It basically says in rap slang “MofO got the drop on you? Let him hot you again. Because you da fool who let him at you in the first place.”[/quote]
LMFAO…I donno why, but think this is hilarious.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
Apparently Jesus endorsed the international socialist program because he and his disciples lived a communal lifestyle. Communal lifestyle = advocates a stateless, international “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the abolition of all private property. You can make Jesus endorse just about anything with a few verses out if context and an elaborate imagination.
[/quote]
how about just logically refuting what I have quoted,with your own scripture. Not explanations of how christians live now etc…I quoted several scriptures,but rather than consider carefully what they say, you just dismiss them because its not what you would like christianity to be. This is unfortunate
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Miyamoto Musashi also thought two swords was enough.[/quote]
and in his case he was right.
At the very least I know what it doesn’t mean. There is nothing in the NT that can be correctly interpreted as meaning Jesus advocated radical pacifism to the point of denouncing self defence as sinful
radical pacifism? Oh geeze. And you know what is doesn’t mean? Did you get that opinion from scripture? Remember,the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
The cheek sentence seems pretty close. I’ll defer to you all on “context,” but the plain text seems to support allowing yourself to get struck by a violence doer. [/quote]
Fair enough, and you may be right, I’m the farthest thing from a bible scholar.
However:
The first clause uses “revenge” which implies you were TAKEN advantage of, past tense. Therefor, don’t seek out to harm those that have harmed you, and instead (second clause) offer forgiveness, remain open to him and move about your life.
What it doesn’t say is: “you must allow him to strike you”. IF someone strikes you… Not WHEN and not ALLOW someone TO strike…
Shit, maybe Matthew was a fighter and was saying “fucking turn and look at where he is hitting you from, so you can see the next shot coming.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
Apparently Jesus endorsed the international socialist program because he and his disciples lived a communal lifestyle. Communal lifestyle = advocates a stateless, international “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the abolition of all private property. You can make Jesus endorse just about anything with a few verses out if context and an elaborate imagination.
[/quote]
it would be better to live the christian life the way the bible teaches rather than take the easy way out,or just ignore specific instructions.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I have had no scripture quoted to me that in any way indicates violence is ok. [/quote]
Any that specifically say “you have to allow violence be done upon you”?
None of the ones you’ve put up say that. [/quote]
The cheek sentence seems pretty close. I’ll defer to you all on “context,” but the plain text seems to support allowing yourself to get struck by a violence doer. [/quote]
Fair enough, and you may be right, I’m the farthest thing from a bible scholar.
However:
The first clause uses “revenge” which implies you were TAKEN advantage of, past tense. Therefor, don’t seek out to harm those that have harmed you, and instead (second clause) offer forgiveness, remain open to him and move about your life.
What it doesn’t say is: “you must allow him to strike you”. IF someone strikes you… Not WHEN and not ALLOW someone TO strike…
Shit, maybe Matthew was a fighter and was saying “fucking turn and look at where he is hitting you from, so you can see the next shot coming.”[/quote]
It also makes sense considering one of the themes of this particular chapter is revenge.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pabergin wrote:
Varq,
I think we’re on different pages. Probably the same book, though.
I’ll rephrase:
Above, you imply that you don’t believe Christian mythology to be historical fact. Now, if the Bible is inaccurate (historically), why quote it at all?
In another post you stated that God is many good things, just not the God of the Bible. To support your position, you quoted some passages where God demonstrates violence, etc. Now, since you believe the Bible to be inaccurate, isn’t it possible the portions you quoted are also inaccurate?
The source is inaccurate, imperfect.
About Star Wars: Never heard that one before, it’s interesting. Let’s see if anyone remembers it in 2000 years. Seems doubtful in our restless, fickle culture. But American culture is a discussion for another thread.
In other words, you established the Bible to be an invalid source of evidence (due to its imperfections) and then proceeded to quote the Bible as “evidence.” Although I could be mixed up. I hope I’m clear, sometimes I’m the only one who understands me.
EDITED[/quote]
Okay. Let me try to be clearer.
If I wanted to make the claim that Zeus was an adulterer, philanderer and rapist, I would pull out Hesiod’s Theogony or perhaps Homer’s Iliad. If I wanted to show that Thor had a serious drinking problem and unresolved anger issues, out would come the Poetic and Prose Eddas. If I wanted to demonstrate that Yahweh was jealous, wrathful and vengeful, I would open up the Tanach. Which, by the way, is Hebrew mythology. It was co-opted by the Christians, in the same way that Greek mythology was co-opted by the Romans.
Note, however, that all these texts do is describe the various deities. There is no way to verify the accuracy of the texts, or even authorship. Nor is there any way to verify whether any of these deities exist, or ever existed.
So if I quote a passage about Yahweh from the Tanach, or a passage about Marduk from the Enuma Elis, or a passage about Aphrodite from the Iliad, I am making no statement about the historicity or authenticity of these characters. Just acknowledging that there are stories about them, in which their attributes are enumerated. [/quote]
I think we’re getting closer.
Correct me if I’m wrong: You are drawing a distinction between the God depicted in the Bible and the God you describe later in this thread?
I think this is where I was getting tripped up in our conversation. I was not making a distinction between the God depicted in the Bible and the ultimate reality of God, which we simply can not perceive with our natural senses.
My point was here: I think the Israelites were attempting to discuss the same thing you are attempting to discuss. Of course, they had different culture, filters, perspectives, vices, virtues, experiences, etc. to attempt a description of God. Neither description is perfect.
Philippians 4:8 ASV
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Are you not both attempting to do the above?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and in his case he was right. [/quote]
Great philosopher.
[quote] Miyamoto Musashi wrote:
“There are five ways in which men pass through life: as gentlemen, warriors, farmers, artisans and merchants.”
[/quote]
Only nowadays many of us have moved onto 6: Cultural Awareness Diversity Consultant. Then the warriors take over and the whole cycle begins anew…but not for us. We go down with the wreck.
[quote] countingbeans wrote:
The first clause uses “revenge” which implies you were TAKEN advantage of, past tense. Therefor, don’t seek out to harm those that have harmed you, and instead (second clause) offer forgiveness, remain open to him and move about your life.
[/quote]
Yep. It’s pretty simple. You’d have to have an ideological agenda to interpret that as a proscription of self defence. And I’ve yet to hear from radical pacifists what Jesus wanted swords for of all things. Shaving? Bushcraft? Industrial strength letter opener?