DescentBB

Rather, the 10 commandments are no burden at all, because we, no longer under the letter of the law, fulfill the law through love in Christ.

But what I'm trying to show is that God's way in Christ does not and cannot apply to a world without God. You can't take what Jesus said, do away with Jesus, and call it justice to let yourself be taken advantage of. When I get people who do not believe in God, and who conduct their life as if there is no God, quoting scripture to me to tell me that a man should be passive toward an aggressor... what do you take me for, a fool? So what is it that restricts my natural right to react with a necessary level of violence to a violent threat? It's like people think Jesus came to point out that it's better in life to be taken advantage of and think yourself the better man. I don't think so! Jesus came to show a better way, but that way is only better--only works because God himself is at the other end of the equation. Otherwise we're just a bunch of fools letting people run over us like they're better than us. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..."

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Arguing scripture with someone with a Catholic background is like running in the special Olympics anyway

nice....bigotry against fellow Christians. Look, Thorne, the bottom line is this: you can CALL yourself a Christian, if you wish. But, so long as you keep advocating for your right to commit violence on others, or to judge others(as you have done, repeatedly), your self-identification as a Christian goes out the window. I'm not saying one has to be perfect, but one should at least quit making public statements that are in DIRECT oppositon to the words and life of Jesus Christ, before claiming to be a follower of same.


,

I love my neighbor but I would shoot my neighbor dead if it was the only way I could stop him from killing me or my family. I don't think the two scenarios are mutually exclusive. My instincts for compassion and empathy are no more powerful than my instincts for survival are.

And if there is a god he is obviously free to correct me on that if I have it wrong but anyone else who wants to tell me so better have a more convincing argument than what I've heard so far as they try to interpret scripture to suit their own philosophy.

I put faith in my survival instincts much more than in my fellow man who aspires to speak for a god!

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Arguing scripture with someone with a Catholic background is like running in the special Olympics anyway

nice....bigotry against fellow Christians. Look, Thorne, the bottom line is this: you can CALL yourself a Christian, if you wish. But, so long as you keep advocating for your right to commit violence on others, or to judge others(as you have done, repeatedly), your self-identification as a Christian goes out the window. I'm not saying one has to be perfect, but one should at least quit making public statements that are in DIRECT oppositon to the words and life of Jesus Christ, before claiming to be a follower of same.


,

I guess slick, you never heard the phrase, "Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammunition".

We're no longer under all the ordinances added in by Moses. Those 10 Commandments, which came directly from the mouth of God, will never pass away. We no longer observe feasts, animal sacrifice, special days or cleansing rites. But those stand, He does not change.

EDIT: I agree Will. For me, if I was to suffer because I was telling people about Christ and they attacked me, I'd suffer for His name and way. Otherwise, no way. I think Will, the little, small voice in your head is God talking to you in the spirit. I don't think people always had that, but now everyone does and that voice will not lie to you and will lead you to the truth.

EDIT: There is a marriage when you accept the Son. 2 become 1 in spirit within you and you partake of the very nature of God and become a son yourself.

Will Robinson wrote:I love my neighbor but I would shoot my neighbor dead if it was the only way I could stop him from killing me or my family. I don't think the two scenarios are mutually exclusive.

yes, they are, if one is going pretend to be following Jesus' words. Not that your reaction isn't perfectly human.

Slick, who do you think Jesus was?

I appreciate Will's point of view. I don't think a man is a man if he's going to let someone or some philosophy talk him out of his family's security. I'll be honest I'm not 100% sure of where I stand, mostly because most Christians you hear weigh in on the subject seem to be cowards (the Bible says cowards have their place in hell too...). I believe that the Bible is he word of God, I believe in God, and I believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Whether love your neighbor or turn the other cheek means don't defend your family is not so conveniently cut-and-dry as you who are predisposed to non-action make it out to be. Will is more in the right, IMO, even if he doesn't believe in God. I'll add that it doesn't make much difference to me what people think of my proximity to God or my identification as a Christian--if you've got something to say, show me where I'm out of line with the scriptures and demonstrate a modicum of logical/critical thinking. I don't give a rats ass if you think I don't belong in any church you know of, and I really don't care to think of myself as religious, per-se.

flip wrote:Slick, who do you think Jesus was?

not going to get into my personal religious beliefs. Thus, I will leave it as simply: a man who lived in Israel/Palestine over 2000 years ago, viewed as a subversive by the authorities, who proseletyzed a philosophy of peace and love.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: (the Bible says cowards have their place in hell too...).

yeah, that 'blessed are the meek' part is just a mere aside.

Well, let me say this. I grew up in the kudzu. I have fought and beat the piss out of at least 30 rednecks. It's much harder to talk them down

Matthew 10
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Well, my point in asking Slick was if you don't even know how the man looked at himself, how could you possibly anticipate his response. I think it is very much imperative when proselytizing, to incur whatever abuse is poured on you, because you are serving a greater purpose. I don't think in any way we should have idly "turned the cheek" to Hitler or anything that exalts itself over what is good. Which is simply love.

EDIT: No, not in some weird hippie way either. I mean the love of God that is empowered on this Earth by putting our faith in Jesus. Which is sometimes tough love, another thing not very well understood.

personally, I accept your more human response, Flip. I was merely arguing the point that at some point, you can either point to Jesus as an absolute with yourself, or acknowledge that you're intent is to be human like the most of us.

Alas! That would lead us to perfected love and I know someone who doesn't know Jesus for who he is, cannot understand that either. That said, I'm just as human as the rest of you but what I've learned has made it a lot easier to deal with the lot of you too!

I am an Orthodox Christian. I was baptized in the church , I wear a cross around his neck with the crucifixion of Christ, who gave me my mom . She wanted to keep me out of trouble. I understand . I've had cases where other than God , I no longer have anyone to talk to. It was a very stressful situation. When people can not help anyone who turns to God , in the hope that it will help. Religiosity inherent in the program of the psyche. Nevertheless , I'm an atheist . I believe in God from the point of view of modern science . I know that there is a Creator , higher civilization that created humans, animals and plants, as well as the conditions for their existence on planet Earth. I have no doubt that our Creator (or "God" ) controls all living beings on Earth . Earth - a laboratory for experimentation of our Creator ( Higher Mind ) . In my opinion, it is hard to deny , from the standpoint of an atheist .
But I believe that the human version of different religions is nothing good except misery and horror did not bring all of humanity. Religion - is a management tool uneducated . Religious feelings of people use only the priests in collusion with politicians to achieve their dirty goals. Religion - is the lack of freedom and democracy . Religion - is a disease. Religion - a rudiment medieval methods of managing people . Christian Inquisition , shamanism , pagan sacrifice, Islamic Jihad , etc. no benefit never brought to mankind. Religion divides humanity into hostile competing groups .
If you want to somehow meet the needs of people in the religious thirst , the need to invent a universal religion of peace for all . This is what we need to do together, so as not to lose the authenticity of different nations, because the culture of different nations is based mainly on religion. It is impossible to lose . Globalization of morality should be raised to the level of world law , without prejudice to the identity of different peoples. This is a very difficult task , but it really need to pay very close attention to all progressive people. And yet we see that the "democratic " politicians continue to use religion for their purely selfish interests . I am sure that in terms of human morality XXII century , we are now not much different from the feudal system of the XVIIIth century .

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: (the Bible says cowards have their place in hell too...).

yeah, that 'blessed are the meek' part is just a mere aside.

So the meek are blessed, the cowards are damned, and it's up to each one of us to know the difference. I think the difference would become evident in one of these worst-case scenarios, no matter what is thought or spoken beforehand. Myself, I'm willing to take a gun, a knife, or whatever I can get my hands on to effectively resist the man who threatens the life of my family. It isn't a pretty scenario, but I think I'm determined enough to be up to the task. I think the next question after that is am I willing to trust God with the safety of my family, and is there grounds for believing that it's a responsibility that God takes on in the course of our obedience to the word of God. I say there is, but a man had better be damn sure that there is a legitimate agreement, and not an imaginary one. So there is how I see the path to non-violence, without also crossing paths with cowardice or just being a fool.

It’s pretty hard to have a discussion if people don’t know the difference between meek and coward… (Yoda is meek)

Also the only ones on this board that hold people up to unobtainable standards seem to be TG, vision and slick. (and only seemingly to make some kind of dumb rub something in your face point, at that)

Anybody that has read my posts over the years knows that I believe that all life has a right to exist, but at the same time, I will squash a bug or kill a rodent in my house. My basis for taking life is a constant….need only basis. (food, health…etc) And, no I’m not a damn Monk!

This is because it is better to have high standards and not reach them than to have lower standards because they are easy.

Spidey wrote:This is because it is better to have high standards and not reach them than to have lower standards because they are easy.

it's the definition of high and low that makes this one less obvious......

What I think is funny is that I never claimed that self-defense isn't a valid course of action; I think it's perfectly justifiable when one's own life, or innocent life in general, is at risk. However I also think that vision's philosophy is perfectly valid, and most certainly the harder path to take. And when people who self-identify as Christians start railing on that philosophy despite Christ's words and actions throughout his ministry, well, that just becomes hypocritical. (One more example for the pot: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Interestingly enough, that comes right from Peter attempting to defend Jesus from those who wished to kill him, which is exactly what we're discussing here.) I shouldn't have to point out in what esteem this nation holds a certain ordained minister who drew upon his faith to establish his philosophy of non-violent resistance.

And Thorne, if you have multiple people who are atheists or don't agree with you doctrinally pointing out some pretty glaring misinterpretations on your part, that's probably a good sign that you're Doing It Wrong.

Top Gun wrote:...(One more example for the pot: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Interestingly enough, that comes right from Peter attempting to defend Jesus from those who wished to kill him, which is exactly what we're discussing here.)

Does he imply the sword is to be used at other times since he said to 'put it back in its place' instead of telling him to throw it away?

And how do we know he wasn't merely telling Peter he was outnumbered? I know that isn't the deep philosophical interpretation, doesn't fit the mystique but how do we know?

Maybe he didn't even say any of that! Maybe we should listen to the story and look inward for the meaning that moves us and keep it there....

In this age of spin and rhetorical bullcrap polarization tactics I think it is best that people just live out their own faith and not try to selectively usurp the meaning of another's for the purpose of berating them. It makes you look like a desperate bully.

Top Gun wrote:And Thorne, if you have multiple people who are atheists or don't agree with you doctrinally pointing out some pretty glaring misinterpretations on your part, that's probably a good sign that you're Doing It Wrong.

True Dat. I love when Christians tell me I don't know Jesus or the bible because I'm an atheist. The opposite is true. I was a Christian studying to become a minister when I started to wake up to all the nonsense in the bible. And the transition took over a decade. However, following Jesus in my early years shaped my worldview and it is still why I refer to him on occasion. The story of Jesus is interesting. He was an early example of what we call a Humanist today (ironically, not what we call a Christian today).

/me waits for the no true Scotsman fallacy to drop in response to my post.

Hehe, my parents put me on a bus when I was 6 to get some time to themselves and I came back a Christian . I think the whole thing reads a lot different when you have no pre-conceived notions. I do not know TG, in this battle that is culminating, maybe some are to be killed with the sword.

flip wrote:......in this battle that is culminating, maybe some are to be killed with the sword.

what battle would that be?

Try to keep up Slick. The battle between good and evil.

and that battle is 'culminating' how, exactly?

I think it's interesting to note that Jesus said

John 18 wrote:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

He must have forgotten for a moment that fighting itself is taboo under all circumstances... Fighting doesn't involve violence, does it? I suppose this passage also was only written to convey the meaning that TopGun and slick ascribe.

It's culminating in the hearts of man.

Flip, I see it as more ongoing since day 1.

flip wrote:It's culminating in the hearts of man.

Statistics point to the opposite. The world is becoming less violent by the day. Tolerance is growing worldwide as more and more people gain rights. So, I'm sorry flip. If you are waiting for a battle between good and evil for Jesus to come back you'll be waiting a long time...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think it's interesting to note that Jesus said

John 18 wrote:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

He must have forgotten for a moment that fighting itself is taboo under all circumstances... Fighting doesn't involve violence, does it? I suppose this passage also was only written to convey the meaning that TopGun and slick ascribe.

Well then how do you propose that we reconcile the two? Note that Christ doesn't necessarily condone that sort of fighting: he merely states it as something that would have happened, and the fact that he stops Peter from doing so just before presumes it's not what he would have wanted. (Of course the point becomes moot in that it isn't what Christ was there for in the first place.) Now again, I view self-defense as a completely justifiable position, and one can take "dying by the sword" as a reference to those who seek violence for its own sake, not use it to save innocent lives if there is no other choice. But my continuing point has been that complete non-violence is also an acceptable path, and one supported by Christ's ministry.

I'm not so sure Vision. I mean, as far as Jesus is concerned, I have been more than convinced. I have a whole lifetime of stories concerning response. As far as man goes, I think we are in that time everybody is saying "Peace and Safety!" but things are gonna get out of balance and when that happens, your neighbors are gonna freak out.

EDIT: I also have an excellent track record

flip wrote:I'm not so sure Vision.

I am, and there is data to prove it. Read this book and get back to me. It's over 800 pages, so take your time.

It’s always darkest just before dawn…errr I mean it’s always the quietest just before the storm…errr…never mind.

TopGun wrote:But my continuing point has been that complete non-violence is also an acceptable path, and one supported by Christ's ministry.

I believe that non-violence can be an acceptable path, and even one that's pleasing to God. I'm convinced that the vast majority of "Christendom" is operating from a position of complacency or cowardice rather than faith or obedience, and I think it's an important distinction. What Vision touts is not really non-violence, thought, is it? It's more like anti-violence--claiming that violence, even defensive violence is somehow naturally unacceptable. I don't believe in telling people they don't have a right to self-defense, because I believe that even in God's eyes when one man commits violence against another unjustly, the victim has a natural right to defend his life. If a man chooses to allow violence against himself in obedience to God--for the furtherance of the kingdom of God, I think there are grounds for that historically and scripturally, but that doesn't put him anywhere near the same camp as Vision, because it's not a denial of the natural right of self-defense, but a forfeiture, placing the responsibility for vengeance and justice on God, but in the mean-time allowing an acknowledged imbalance.

I actually know a little more about Vision's brand of "non-violence" than I've said, because I was involved myself in Aikido and Judo as methonds of non-violent self-defense, and some of the philosophy that goes along with that. Not only is his position a logical offense to the reality of balance and natural human rights, but the philosophy behind all of that in my experience is vacuous and contrived. A good word for it is "strange", but people believe it because it sounds so good, and kinda gives you a special ability and responsibility. It's not worth it.

Don't just read one book. People are much more fierce now than when I was a kid. I have watched countless hours of police beating the piss out of people. Knock-out games, murder and robbery every other minute......list goes on. I think people are lot harder now than they used to be. We'll see, I'm not gonna be so arrogant to outright say your wrong, I'll just say I hope your right. Yet, I think in light of any catastrophe, you might need to keep an eye out for which friend is gonna eat you . If everything keeps just peachy, then your probably right. Otherwise, people are hysterical when in a state of confusion.

I have no problem with vision’s position, I only have a problem when other people try to make me into them.

Go on, live the way you want to, I think that is great, and by all means tell other people that you think your way is best…but that is where I have to draw the line, when you start to imply that I’m less than moral because I don’t believe the same things or you try to force your way on me…then you have crossed that line.

flip wrote:.....but things are gonna get out of balance and when that happens, your neighbors are gonna freak out.

I love that series, 'Doomsday Preppers'! Those folks say this sort of thing a lot.........

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What Vision touts is not really non-violence, thought, is it? It's more like anti-violence--claiming that violence, even defensive violence is somehow naturally unacceptable...
I actually know a little more about Vision's brand of "non-violence" than I've said... It's not worth it.

As I said earlier my viewpoint is extreme. I am definitely anti-violence. How can someone who is anti-violence follow anything but a non-violent path? How would you like to split hairs between non (no violence) and anti (against violence), and what would be the point of trying to distinguish between the two? Following a non-violent path with "exceptions" isn't non-violent at all, is it? Yes I will preach because my ideas are worth hearing even if few follow them. They don't involve immature labels like good and evil and don't require magic men in the sky. They only require consideration of others without exception. Sorry your religious upbringing taught you to that some people are not worth saving and are "not worth it."

flip wrote:Don't just read one book.

It's not just one book. It is a comprehensive look at violence over the ages using statistics and historical research by dozens of experts worldwide. It's not an editorial. It goes way beyond the anecdotes you provide.