Jester;1015837 wrote: If war is necessary, then Jesus must condone it, or you need to adjust your thinking in your last paragrah to say that war in totally unecessary because it is contrary to the life teaching of Jesus. Which is it?
So who gets to decide if war is necessary? Where in the new testament (assume for the moment that it does contain the uncontaminated teaching of christ) does he call for holy war against against another religion?
Christian Fundamentalism
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
That is nonsense and you know it. I have never asked anyone to believe as I do. I am merely presenting another point of view in light of the fact that far too many folks have been turned off any religious faith because of the fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist point of view is the creation, the invention, of the reformation. It does not reflect the church of the Apostles.
I do not run around telling people they do not represent God or they are pouring out poisoned water. This kind of personal attack is offensive. Yes I attack ideas and concepts but I do not attack the person. The one positive thing about it is it does show what I've been talking about. It shows the vitriol and the hatred that I found in the fundamentalist church when I was a member. This is not from Christ. It is from human invention.
The church is the creation of God. It is his body here on earth and there are several churches that recognize my depth of faith. Since the church is the body of Christ and that body which includes Christ recognizes my position.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is nonsense and you know it. I have never asked anyone to believe as I do. I am merely presenting another point of view in light of the fact that far too many folks have been turned off any religious faith because of the fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist point of view is the creation, the invention, of the reformation. It does not reflect the church of the Apostles.
I do not run around telling people they do not represent God or they are pouring out poisoned water. This kind of personal attack is offensive. Yes I attack ideas and concepts but I do not attack the person. The one positive thing about it is it does show what I've been talking about. It shows the vitriol and the hatred that I found in the fundamentalist church when I was a member. This is not from Christ. It is from human invention.
The church is the creation of God. It is his body here on earth and there are several churches that recognize my depth of faith. Since the church is the body of Christ and that body which includes Christ recognizes my position.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
Show me in the life or teachings of Jesus where he recognizes war. If we see in Jesus the true nature of God, show me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Show me in the life or teachings of Jesus where he recognizes war. If we see in Jesus the true nature of God, show me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester;1015837 wrote: If war is necessary, then Jesus must condone it, or you need to adjust your thinking in your last paragrah to say that war in totally unecessary because it is contrary to the life teaching of Jesus. Which is it?
Could you explain this - it appears to say that because man decides that war is necessary, Jesus must condone it.
I far prefer the second reading - war is totally un-necessary because it is contrary to the teaching of Jesus.
Could you explain this - it appears to say that because man decides that war is necessary, Jesus must condone it.
I far prefer the second reading - war is totally un-necessary because it is contrary to the teaching of Jesus.
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester;1018010 wrote: Read post 311.
I hadn't read that far when I posted.
To me, that is pure rationalisation to get the result you want and says, effectively, it's up to you to decide whether God is moving the Government to do his will.
We are not fitted to second guess God's will and it still does not explain
If war is necessary, then Jesus must condone it
it explains that if we, in our wisdom, decide that the war is necessary then we assume that Jesus has condoned it to salve our conscience.
It also explains how both sides in most wars have believed that they have God on their side.
I hadn't read that far when I posted.
To me, that is pure rationalisation to get the result you want and says, effectively, it's up to you to decide whether God is moving the Government to do his will.
We are not fitted to second guess God's will and it still does not explain
If war is necessary, then Jesus must condone it
it explains that if we, in our wisdom, decide that the war is necessary then we assume that Jesus has condoned it to salve our conscience.
It also explains how both sides in most wars have believed that they have God on their side.
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
That is an opinion I do not hold. I have repeatedly said that I do not necessarily want folks to believe as I do. I have also said that we must each choose our own path. Now, what I do respond to is the adamant presentation of the fundamentalists. Their adamant approach deserves the same in return. That they want to hold the Bible literally is find with me. By the same token that also drives others away from any faith. All I want is for folks to think for themselves.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is an opinion I do not hold. I have repeatedly said that I do not necessarily want folks to believe as I do. I have also said that we must each choose our own path. Now, what I do respond to is the adamant presentation of the fundamentalists. Their adamant approach deserves the same in return. That they want to hold the Bible literally is find with me. By the same token that also drives others away from any faith. All I want is for folks to think for themselves.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
I do appreciate your explanation. Thanks. Yes I and my family were severely hurt by that church and many like it. However, I long ago forgave them. You want me to stop presenting my point of view. However, I do have every right to present mine as you do yours. I do not claim that I have a monopoly on the truth and never have since I left the fundamentalist church. No one has such a monopoly whether they think they do or not.
You want me to change but that church actually did me a favour. It made me open my eyes to the reality around me. My studies have convinced me that I am on a correct path. I have said before I do not believe the fundamentalists are on an incorrect path. I believe there is room for all paths.
For some 50 years I've been on this path and have prayed daily for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Things have worked out exactly as they should and I have been guided by the Holy Spirit.
I think it is time for all people of faith to realize that there are other equally valid interpretations of the sacred scriptures in all the Great faiths.
John 16:12-15 was my specific reference. When Jesus left he knew that we were not yet ready to hear all the truth and said that as were became ready it would be presented to us. Thus Jesus himself knew that he was not the end of revelation and that it would continue until the end. Thus in this day we can turn to science which shows us many of the continuing truths. Who granted these men the intelligence to proceed? God of course.
You are correct that Jesus does not speak of war. In fact he refused to let his own disciples defend him showing his disdain for fighting. In the OT we see in Num 31 God apparently tilling the Hebrews to kill every man woman and child except they could keep the virgins for themselves. This came for the God who said you shall do no murder? This came from the God who said through Jesus that the greatest commandment was love? No it did not. It is a later addition to the book of Num to give a defense to the Hebrews for their terrorism. The OT must be read in light of the NT. Jesus changed things.
I will save for another post my comments on Jesus and why I don't think he condoned war.
I did say that at times war was necessary. That has nothing whatsoever to do with God but self defense. The God we see manifest in Jesus does not condone war. He permits it.
Once again I did appreciate your response.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I do appreciate your explanation. Thanks. Yes I and my family were severely hurt by that church and many like it. However, I long ago forgave them. You want me to stop presenting my point of view. However, I do have every right to present mine as you do yours. I do not claim that I have a monopoly on the truth and never have since I left the fundamentalist church. No one has such a monopoly whether they think they do or not.
You want me to change but that church actually did me a favour. It made me open my eyes to the reality around me. My studies have convinced me that I am on a correct path. I have said before I do not believe the fundamentalists are on an incorrect path. I believe there is room for all paths.
For some 50 years I've been on this path and have prayed daily for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Things have worked out exactly as they should and I have been guided by the Holy Spirit.
I think it is time for all people of faith to realize that there are other equally valid interpretations of the sacred scriptures in all the Great faiths.
John 16:12-15 was my specific reference. When Jesus left he knew that we were not yet ready to hear all the truth and said that as were became ready it would be presented to us. Thus Jesus himself knew that he was not the end of revelation and that it would continue until the end. Thus in this day we can turn to science which shows us many of the continuing truths. Who granted these men the intelligence to proceed? God of course.
You are correct that Jesus does not speak of war. In fact he refused to let his own disciples defend him showing his disdain for fighting. In the OT we see in Num 31 God apparently tilling the Hebrews to kill every man woman and child except they could keep the virgins for themselves. This came for the God who said you shall do no murder? This came from the God who said through Jesus that the greatest commandment was love? No it did not. It is a later addition to the book of Num to give a defense to the Hebrews for their terrorism. The OT must be read in light of the NT. Jesus changed things.
I will save for another post my comments on Jesus and why I don't think he condoned war.
I did say that at times war was necessary. That has nothing whatsoever to do with God but self defense. The God we see manifest in Jesus does not condone war. He permits it.
Once again I did appreciate your response.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
I do think this is pertinent in this particular thread.
I've been doing some research on the word "repent". In neither the ancient Hebrew or Greek did it mean to be sorry for ones sin and to confess those sins.
The word translated from Hebrew into repent is "nacham". It meant to turn around. It did not mean to be sorry for ones sins. That meaning is not part of the Hebrew.
The word repent from the Greek was "metanoia". "Meta" meant " "again" and the term "noeo" meant "to think". Thus the term metanoia originally meant "to think again". In neither case does it mean to be sorry.
Modern scholars have concluded that the best translation to day is "to go beyond your mind". This should lead to a transformation which means essentially to change to a new way of living in the world.
These were the original meanings in the early church, the one established by Jesus. These changes are probably the result of the reformation and the poor translation abilities of the day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've been doing some research on the word "repent". In neither the ancient Hebrew or Greek did it mean to be sorry for ones sin and to confess those sins.
The word translated from Hebrew into repent is "nacham". It meant to turn around. It did not mean to be sorry for ones sins. That meaning is not part of the Hebrew.
The word repent from the Greek was "metanoia". "Meta" meant " "again" and the term "noeo" meant "to think". Thus the term metanoia originally meant "to think again". In neither case does it mean to be sorry.
Modern scholars have concluded that the best translation to day is "to go beyond your mind". This should lead to a transformation which means essentially to change to a new way of living in the world.
These were the original meanings in the early church, the one established by Jesus. These changes are probably the result of the reformation and the poor translation abilities of the day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
Now to Jesus. I firmly believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. He was not what the Hebrews expected.
I also believe that we must make a distinction between the pre-easter and post-easter Jesus. In the true man Jesus of Nazareth we see manifest the true nature of God. This man enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. His relationship was such that Jesus will became one with the will of God. At his death the man Jesus died. The resurrection is an event that we cannot under any circumstances understand or explain. After his resurrection the disciples had the very profound feeling that this Jesus was still with them. Indeed in some mysterious way he was very much alive and continues to be. He has influenced the course of history ever since. He has affected the lives of millions down through the millenia.
Jesus has indeed become one with the Divine which is the hope of every Christian past and present. In a metaphorical way we can say that Jesus was God. In reality the pre-easter Jesus was very much a human being born of parents Mary and perhaps one named Joseph. The post easter Jesus is indeed part of the Divine.
Yes, I can say Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Now to Jesus. I firmly believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. He was not what the Hebrews expected.
I also believe that we must make a distinction between the pre-easter and post-easter Jesus. In the true man Jesus of Nazareth we see manifest the true nature of God. This man enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. His relationship was such that Jesus will became one with the will of God. At his death the man Jesus died. The resurrection is an event that we cannot under any circumstances understand or explain. After his resurrection the disciples had the very profound feeling that this Jesus was still with them. Indeed in some mysterious way he was very much alive and continues to be. He has influenced the course of history ever since. He has affected the lives of millions down through the millenia.
Jesus has indeed become one with the Divine which is the hope of every Christian past and present. In a metaphorical way we can say that Jesus was God. In reality the pre-easter Jesus was very much a human being born of parents Mary and perhaps one named Joseph. The post easter Jesus is indeed part of the Divine.
Yes, I can say Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Christian Fundamentalism
Ted;1019625 wrote: Hoss:-6
Now to Jesus. I firmly believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. He was not what the Hebrews expected.
I also believe that we must make a distinction between the pre-easter and post-easter Jesus. In the true man Jesus of Nazareth we see manifest the true nature of God. This man enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. His relationship was such that Jesus will became one with the will of God. At his death the man Jesus died. The resurrection is an event that we cannot under any circumstances understand or explain. After his resurrection the disciples had the very profound feeling that this Jesus was still with them. Indeed in some mysterious way he was very much alive and continues to be. He has influenced the course of history ever since. He has affected the lives of millions down through the millenia.
Jesus has indeed become one with the Divine which is the hope of every Christian past and present. In a metaphorical way we can say that Jesus was God. In reality the pre-easter Jesus was very much a human being born of parents Mary and perhaps one named Joseph. The post easter Jesus is indeed part of the Divine.
Yes, I can say Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6I'm sorry, I'm going to jump in on this one.... Do you not believe that Jesus actually resurrected the way most people would think he did?
Now to Jesus. I firmly believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. He was not what the Hebrews expected.
I also believe that we must make a distinction between the pre-easter and post-easter Jesus. In the true man Jesus of Nazareth we see manifest the true nature of God. This man enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. His relationship was such that Jesus will became one with the will of God. At his death the man Jesus died. The resurrection is an event that we cannot under any circumstances understand or explain. After his resurrection the disciples had the very profound feeling that this Jesus was still with them. Indeed in some mysterious way he was very much alive and continues to be. He has influenced the course of history ever since. He has affected the lives of millions down through the millenia.
Jesus has indeed become one with the Divine which is the hope of every Christian past and present. In a metaphorical way we can say that Jesus was God. In reality the pre-easter Jesus was very much a human being born of parents Mary and perhaps one named Joseph. The post easter Jesus is indeed part of the Divine.
Yes, I can say Jesus is Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6I'm sorry, I'm going to jump in on this one.... Do you not believe that Jesus actually resurrected the way most people would think he did?
Smoke signals ftw!
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Christian Fundamentalism
Ted;1019620 wrote: I do think this is pertinent in this particular thread.
I've been doing some research on the word "repent". In neither the ancient Hebrew or Greek did it mean to be sorry for ones sin and to confess those sins.
The word translated from Hebrew into repent is "nacham". It meant to turn around. It did not mean to be sorry for ones sins. That meaning is not part of the Hebrew.
The word repent from the Greek was "metanoia". "Meta" meant " "again" and the term "noeo" meant "to think". Thus the term metanoia originally meant "to think again". In neither case does it mean to be sorry.
Modern scholars have concluded that the best translation to day is "to go beyond your mind". This should lead to a transformation which means essentially to change to a new way of living in the world.
These were the original meanings in the early church, the one established by Jesus. These changes are probably the result of the reformation and the poor translation abilities of the day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Verbs:
REPENT
1. metanoeo
lit., "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive"; nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Lk 17:3,4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, 2:5 (twice), 16,21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2 nd part); 3:3,19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Co 12:21. See also the general Note below.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
REPENT
metamelomai
meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Mt 21:29, RV, "repented himself"; v. 32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (KJV, "ye repented not"); 27:3, "repented himself"; 2 Co 7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Heb 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Adjective
REPENT
ametameletos , NT:278), "not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose"; it is said (a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Ro 11:29; (b) of man, 2 Co 7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, see C)]... which bringeth no regret" (KJV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret."
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
REPENT
C. Noun.
metanoia (
meta/noia
, NT:3341), "afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Heb 12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss.
As regards "repentance" from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e. g., in Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8; Ac 20:21; 26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e. g., in Ac 5:31; 11:18; Ro 2:4; 2 Ti 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Mt 9:13 and Mk 2:17, as in the RV.
Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e. g., Ge 6:6; Ex 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).
In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Mt 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's gospel and 1 st epistle the effects are stressed, e. g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith Jn 3:3; 9:38; 1 Jn 1:9, as in the NT in general.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
I've been doing some research on the word "repent". In neither the ancient Hebrew or Greek did it mean to be sorry for ones sin and to confess those sins.
The word translated from Hebrew into repent is "nacham". It meant to turn around. It did not mean to be sorry for ones sins. That meaning is not part of the Hebrew.
The word repent from the Greek was "metanoia". "Meta" meant " "again" and the term "noeo" meant "to think". Thus the term metanoia originally meant "to think again". In neither case does it mean to be sorry.
Modern scholars have concluded that the best translation to day is "to go beyond your mind". This should lead to a transformation which means essentially to change to a new way of living in the world.
These were the original meanings in the early church, the one established by Jesus. These changes are probably the result of the reformation and the poor translation abilities of the day.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Verbs:
REPENT
1. metanoeo
lit., "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive"; nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Lk 17:3,4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, 2:5 (twice), 16,21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2 nd part); 3:3,19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Co 12:21. See also the general Note below.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
REPENT
metamelomai
meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Mt 21:29, RV, "repented himself"; v. 32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (KJV, "ye repented not"); 27:3, "repented himself"; 2 Co 7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Heb 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Adjective
REPENT
ametameletos , NT:278), "not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose"; it is said (a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Ro 11:29; (b) of man, 2 Co 7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, see C)]... which bringeth no regret" (KJV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret."
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
REPENT
C. Noun.
metanoia (
meta/noia
, NT:3341), "afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Heb 12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss.
As regards "repentance" from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e. g., in Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8; Ac 20:21; 26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e. g., in Ac 5:31; 11:18; Ro 2:4; 2 Ti 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Mt 9:13 and Mk 2:17, as in the RV.
Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e. g., Ge 6:6; Ex 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).
In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Mt 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's gospel and 1 st epistle the effects are stressed, e. g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith Jn 3:3; 9:38; 1 Jn 1:9, as in the NT in general.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Smoke signals ftw!
Christian Fundamentalism
When I hear the words Christian Fundamentalism, I think of Westboro Baptist Church.
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
Jesus was a nonviolent resister. Yes he got angry at times but he was basically a nonviolent resister.
I would agree with you that change must take place in the heart. Absolutely. That can happen in any faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jesus was a nonviolent resister. Yes he got angry at times but he was basically a nonviolent resister.
I would agree with you that change must take place in the heart. Absolutely. That can happen in any faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
posted by hoss
I'm sorry to point this out once again, I think its best if I just stop discussing things with you, we hold very, very different of views to make this conversation any thing but offensive to each other.
I fundamentally disagree with both you and ted. the thing is you can disagree with someone both being passionate about their beliefs without getting offensive or taking the disagreement personally. It's human nature to question and debate everything and the advantage of this kind of forum is you get to discourse with people whose opinions at times seem quite alien.
You will probably never persuade the other (I've given up on ted-except the now agrees he's irrational-and your dad) on the other hand the exercise helps you crystallise you own beliefs, maybe even reinforce them. I am now definitely an atheist (thanks guys for showing me the light) but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in religion or in constantly exploring it. It's a question for all your life. Why do you believe that-why do you think he way you do. Anyone that believes they know the answer doesn't understand the question imo.
Thinking hurts, expressing yourself is difficult and when you find yourself being asked why do you believe a thing is so it's not a challenge to you as a person but a request to find out more. if someone actually wants to be offensive it's their problem. They tend not to stick around anyway.
As an aside one thing i dislike about fundamentalist of any type-not just religious- is that they do not want discourse they just want people to agree with them and do what they are told. It would be a pity if you gave up on ted the arguement between the two of you is interesting. Apparently he's canadian which may be significant. So is Pamela Anderson which is completely irrelevant, but interesting none the less. I see jester is leaving you to it the big wimp.:sneaky:
posted by hoss
I'll let my dad talk to you about the fighting part, but Jesus stopped the men from defending him because it was not the right time, you can’t derive from his stopping that he is against violence, especially when he will eventually come specifically for war to lead his armies.
That's just your interpretation is it not? In would put it to you that the whole point of jesus' message was that there is another way. mankind does not need to live in violence or hate but love and respect one another-even your enemies-as you love yourself. turn the other cheek and all that. Had he fought back his impact would have been insignificant to non existent. Just another jewish terrorist/freedom fighter the romans had to sort out.
To conflate that with he's going to come back and lead god's armies to kick the proverbial out of everyone that didn't convert is where fundamentalism starts not making any sense but appear to be interpreting things to suit themselves and their own prejudices.
If god gave man free will but always knows what the choice is going to be and comes back to punish those who use the free will to do something against god's law by sending them to hell he's an all knowing very strange individual indeed.
I might have respect for those who follow the teachings of JC but those who take them in and can also hold to the old testament as well I find absurd.
Love thy neighbour as thyself, forgive those who trespass against you and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just don't belong together.
I'm sorry to point this out once again, I think its best if I just stop discussing things with you, we hold very, very different of views to make this conversation any thing but offensive to each other.
I fundamentally disagree with both you and ted. the thing is you can disagree with someone both being passionate about their beliefs without getting offensive or taking the disagreement personally. It's human nature to question and debate everything and the advantage of this kind of forum is you get to discourse with people whose opinions at times seem quite alien.
You will probably never persuade the other (I've given up on ted-except the now agrees he's irrational-and your dad) on the other hand the exercise helps you crystallise you own beliefs, maybe even reinforce them. I am now definitely an atheist (thanks guys for showing me the light) but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in religion or in constantly exploring it. It's a question for all your life. Why do you believe that-why do you think he way you do. Anyone that believes they know the answer doesn't understand the question imo.
Thinking hurts, expressing yourself is difficult and when you find yourself being asked why do you believe a thing is so it's not a challenge to you as a person but a request to find out more. if someone actually wants to be offensive it's their problem. They tend not to stick around anyway.
As an aside one thing i dislike about fundamentalist of any type-not just religious- is that they do not want discourse they just want people to agree with them and do what they are told. It would be a pity if you gave up on ted the arguement between the two of you is interesting. Apparently he's canadian which may be significant. So is Pamela Anderson which is completely irrelevant, but interesting none the less. I see jester is leaving you to it the big wimp.:sneaky:
posted by hoss
I'll let my dad talk to you about the fighting part, but Jesus stopped the men from defending him because it was not the right time, you can’t derive from his stopping that he is against violence, especially when he will eventually come specifically for war to lead his armies.
That's just your interpretation is it not? In would put it to you that the whole point of jesus' message was that there is another way. mankind does not need to live in violence or hate but love and respect one another-even your enemies-as you love yourself. turn the other cheek and all that. Had he fought back his impact would have been insignificant to non existent. Just another jewish terrorist/freedom fighter the romans had to sort out.
To conflate that with he's going to come back and lead god's armies to kick the proverbial out of everyone that didn't convert is where fundamentalism starts not making any sense but appear to be interpreting things to suit themselves and their own prejudices.
If god gave man free will but always knows what the choice is going to be and comes back to punish those who use the free will to do something against god's law by sending them to hell he's an all knowing very strange individual indeed.
I might have respect for those who follow the teachings of JC but those who take them in and can also hold to the old testament as well I find absurd.
Love thy neighbour as thyself, forgive those who trespass against you and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just don't belong together.
Christian Fundamentalism
Omni:-6
You are correct by today's standards but in Biblical days it simply meant to change one's mind. It had no sense of being sorry for past sins. It is simply not there.
The Rev. Dr. C. Bourgeault, D. Crossan, J. Spong and others.
I've now checked three Greek lexicons, Young's, Vine's and Liddell and Scott's. All indicate quite well that metanoia=a change of mind or a change of direction but no indication whatsoever of the idea of being sorry. Probably a creation of the reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are correct by today's standards but in Biblical days it simply meant to change one's mind. It had no sense of being sorry for past sins. It is simply not there.
The Rev. Dr. C. Bourgeault, D. Crossan, J. Spong and others.
I've now checked three Greek lexicons, Young's, Vine's and Liddell and Scott's. All indicate quite well that metanoia=a change of mind or a change of direction but no indication whatsoever of the idea of being sorry. Probably a creation of the reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
The world's premier Jesus scholar D. Crossan and one right behind him, M. Borg both assert that without a doubt Jesus was a non violent resister. It is definitely not just my interpretation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The world's premier Jesus scholar D. Crossan and one right behind him, M. Borg both assert that without a doubt Jesus was a non violent resister. It is definitely not just my interpretation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
There is absolutely not contradiction in what I wrote. In Biblical times "repent" did not mean to be sorry for. Neither was that the concept of the early church. It is an invention of the reformation. You speak of context. Yes context is important and that includes the times in which the writing took place. At that time repent did not mean to be sorry for anything. If you have not gone to the early church than you do not know what they believed or what the wrote meant. You are adding reformation thinking and revision to your thinking.
Now to the next point. The idea of repent=turn around has nothing to do with my saying that we cannot be sure of what the original texts said. If there is a contradiction there it is only in your own mind.
There is no angst here but it is with you.
Do I believe in the Virgin birth. Let's see Caesar, Buddha and many of the ancient leaders had virgin births. That was the common understanding and belief about these great leaders. No I do not believe in the virgin birth.
As far as my reading goes you have no idea. I read very broadly about all of the world's great faiths. I know most about Christianity.
Yes I do say "your God is too small" because you try to limit the Divine to your own human concepts and yours alone. Other Christians have different concepts. My beef with the fundamentalist faith is precisely that. It does not teach the whole truth but only one small part. It misses the boat. I'm sure that God really doesn't care. What the Divine does care about is the personal judgments that people place on others; the sliver and the plank in one's eye.
I can't justify or support my opinions? Now that is a joke. You refer to one humanly written book. I accept that all people of God are inspired at times. That these people and the church relay to us the further teachings that Jesus spoke of in John 16. You would seem to deny that teaching. I could list you hundreds of scholarly people.
As for the Red Sea parting. If you wish to believe that, go for it. Archaeologists have searched and search and have not found one shred of evidence for that or the Exodus as written. It is a legend based, in all likelihood on the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. There is no evidence for a massive invasion of Canaan either. Many of the Hebrew people that were in Canaan were in fact Canaanites that moved from the low country to the high country because they had chosen to follow monotheism. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Note they are both Jewish.
Now to Mohammed and Buddha and others. I believe they too were men of God. It is not unlike Christianity. Man has twisted and folded and refolded an original faith into whatever s/'he wanted. He has indeed created God in his/her own image. I like the Buddhist view that God is too sacred to even name let alone describe beyond justice and compassion.
Now let us go to the word justice. At the time of Philo who lived at the time of Jesus justice meant the equal distribution of the earths resources-equality. Yes it did have a judgmental part too it but it was a minor part. Here again an example of the redaction of the reformation. So called orthodoxy cannot be traced back to the early church. It is the invention of man.
One of the problems that the Ayatolla Khomenie faced was that he had read no other book beyond the Qur'an. Thus his knowledge remained very limited. If all a Christian reads is the Bible then s/he remains with the same limited view of reality.
So how does God speak to us of mysteries that we were not ready to receive at the time of Jesus: history, meditation, scientific research, the church, common sense, psychological research, the church fathers down through the centuries. When we rely solely on the Bible it becomes bibliolatry. Or Lord has given us the intelligence to use. To fail to use it is a sin in my view.
The fundamentalist view makes God into nothing more than a revised version of the ancient Greek and Persian god's; some kind of monster that willy nilly murders and runs the world on a basis of do as I say not as I do. Since I am God I can do as I please regardless of what I demand of my people; would be an evil and untrustworthy entity in my view and the view of thousands if not millions.
Now have said all of that, which by the way I can support, anyone can believe what they want but they should keep their personal judgments to themselves.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is absolutely not contradiction in what I wrote. In Biblical times "repent" did not mean to be sorry for. Neither was that the concept of the early church. It is an invention of the reformation. You speak of context. Yes context is important and that includes the times in which the writing took place. At that time repent did not mean to be sorry for anything. If you have not gone to the early church than you do not know what they believed or what the wrote meant. You are adding reformation thinking and revision to your thinking.
Now to the next point. The idea of repent=turn around has nothing to do with my saying that we cannot be sure of what the original texts said. If there is a contradiction there it is only in your own mind.
There is no angst here but it is with you.
Do I believe in the Virgin birth. Let's see Caesar, Buddha and many of the ancient leaders had virgin births. That was the common understanding and belief about these great leaders. No I do not believe in the virgin birth.
As far as my reading goes you have no idea. I read very broadly about all of the world's great faiths. I know most about Christianity.
Yes I do say "your God is too small" because you try to limit the Divine to your own human concepts and yours alone. Other Christians have different concepts. My beef with the fundamentalist faith is precisely that. It does not teach the whole truth but only one small part. It misses the boat. I'm sure that God really doesn't care. What the Divine does care about is the personal judgments that people place on others; the sliver and the plank in one's eye.
I can't justify or support my opinions? Now that is a joke. You refer to one humanly written book. I accept that all people of God are inspired at times. That these people and the church relay to us the further teachings that Jesus spoke of in John 16. You would seem to deny that teaching. I could list you hundreds of scholarly people.
As for the Red Sea parting. If you wish to believe that, go for it. Archaeologists have searched and search and have not found one shred of evidence for that or the Exodus as written. It is a legend based, in all likelihood on the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. There is no evidence for a massive invasion of Canaan either. Many of the Hebrew people that were in Canaan were in fact Canaanites that moved from the low country to the high country because they had chosen to follow monotheism. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Note they are both Jewish.
Now to Mohammed and Buddha and others. I believe they too were men of God. It is not unlike Christianity. Man has twisted and folded and refolded an original faith into whatever s/'he wanted. He has indeed created God in his/her own image. I like the Buddhist view that God is too sacred to even name let alone describe beyond justice and compassion.
Now let us go to the word justice. At the time of Philo who lived at the time of Jesus justice meant the equal distribution of the earths resources-equality. Yes it did have a judgmental part too it but it was a minor part. Here again an example of the redaction of the reformation. So called orthodoxy cannot be traced back to the early church. It is the invention of man.
One of the problems that the Ayatolla Khomenie faced was that he had read no other book beyond the Qur'an. Thus his knowledge remained very limited. If all a Christian reads is the Bible then s/he remains with the same limited view of reality.
So how does God speak to us of mysteries that we were not ready to receive at the time of Jesus: history, meditation, scientific research, the church, common sense, psychological research, the church fathers down through the centuries. When we rely solely on the Bible it becomes bibliolatry. Or Lord has given us the intelligence to use. To fail to use it is a sin in my view.
The fundamentalist view makes God into nothing more than a revised version of the ancient Greek and Persian god's; some kind of monster that willy nilly murders and runs the world on a basis of do as I say not as I do. Since I am God I can do as I please regardless of what I demand of my people; would be an evil and untrustworthy entity in my view and the view of thousands if not millions.
Now have said all of that, which by the way I can support, anyone can believe what they want but they should keep their personal judgments to themselves.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
The meaning of an ancient word has no bearing on who or how it was used. Whether it was used by the ancient author makes no difference to what it meant to the ancients. The only contradiction is with you.
It was later in history that someone decided that it should have that additional meaning.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The meaning of an ancient word has no bearing on who or how it was used. Whether it was used by the ancient author makes no difference to what it meant to the ancients. The only contradiction is with you.
It was later in history that someone decided that it should have that additional meaning.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
One last time. If you can't get this then I can't help you. Perhaps a little study in ancient etymology would help you.
The ancient meaning of a word does not change whether or not it was used in any particular work. Whether Isaiah or the author of Mark, whomever that was, used it or not does not change the ancient meaning.
Shalom
Ted:-6
One last time. If you can't get this then I can't help you. Perhaps a little study in ancient etymology would help you.
The ancient meaning of a word does not change whether or not it was used in any particular work. Whether Isaiah or the author of Mark, whomever that was, used it or not does not change the ancient meaning.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
They often blame teachers because their child cannot read or spell. The fact is unless the child puts appropriate effort into the task at hand they learn nothing. It does not matter what the teacher tries. If the child refuses to learn s/he can't be helped.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
You told me to invent something new. Anything I would "invent" would hinge on understanding the first concept. Now if you don't want to make the effort to understand the first one why would I bother posting more since it would be a total waste of my time.
Actually it was a simple general educational statement. Directed a no one in particular. So to the question "Is it a personal attack?" Absolutely not. It is a simple statement of fact well known and well documented in both the literature and in practice.
So if that does not answer Hoss' question. Perhaps you could repeat the question so that my minuscule brain could understand.
Now that I look back I can see that I very well addressed the question of the so called contradictory statements. It really was quite clear.
So on this one "over and out."
Shalom
Ted:-6
You told me to invent something new. Anything I would "invent" would hinge on understanding the first concept. Now if you don't want to make the effort to understand the first one why would I bother posting more since it would be a total waste of my time.
Actually it was a simple general educational statement. Directed a no one in particular. So to the question "Is it a personal attack?" Absolutely not. It is a simple statement of fact well known and well documented in both the literature and in practice.
So if that does not answer Hoss' question. Perhaps you could repeat the question so that my minuscule brain could understand.
Now that I look back I can see that I very well addressed the question of the so called contradictory statements. It really was quite clear.
So on this one "over and out."
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
I comment on views I do not, repeat, do not judge the people.
I find a good deal of your post typical fundamentalist arrogance and precisely the reason I realized that fundamentalism was wrong.
Contradiction? BS. Either you have a reading problem or you are simply being the typical fundamentalist or perhaps there is another problem I'm not aware of. At any rate you be the judge..
I have never said that Jesus is not the "Son of God". To say I have is an out and out untruth.
I have repeatedly said I accept Jesus as the Messiah. Your comment is another twisting of the truth.
I have never denied the resurrection. Once again you twist the truth.
Your comments on my faith are incorrect. You have absolutely no concept of the breadth or depth of my faith. Here we see another personal attack.
Perhaps it is your view that is warped.
Scholars as false teachers. In your dreams. Give me a break!
I said that I had great respect for the Buddhist view of not naming God. They feel that God is to sacred and holy to be named; that they do not have the right to approach such a wonderful divinity. Perhaps our view takes too many liberties. At least they recognize the sacredness of God. BTW when God used the term "I Am" He was really saying it is none of you business. "I am who I am." No name is necessary.
You speak of my false faith. Let me let you in on a view. During the reformation the reformers usurped the term Christian and then created their own and a new faith. It most certainly does not reflect the early church of the Apostles. Fundamentalism is an human invented faith.
You comments on the Qur'an once again show typical fundamentalist arrogance.
As for my changing the Bible I have never done so. It was done by the authors, the editors, the redactors and the early church. These are facts no guesses. They have been shown. The fact is the Bible we have today has be so altered over the centuries.
I couldn't care less that you attack my ideas and even less that you attack me as a person. It is typical fundamentalist arrogance. It certainly is not in the nature of a true discussion but an attempt at proselytization. I am not here proselytize but to present another point of view that is accepted by millions of Christians around the world.
I respect all folks' right to believe as they do. When I have been attacked personally it has not been from members of other faiths, nor agnostics, nor atheists. We each have the right to follow our own path. The only attacks I have had as a person have been from so called Christians. It is no wonder that many are turned off by fundamentalist Christianity.
BTW I had a good laugh when after explaining our conversation a clergy person commented that I must be doing something right. LOL
Once again I wish you the peace of Christ.
Ted:-6
I comment on views I do not, repeat, do not judge the people.
I find a good deal of your post typical fundamentalist arrogance and precisely the reason I realized that fundamentalism was wrong.
Contradiction? BS. Either you have a reading problem or you are simply being the typical fundamentalist or perhaps there is another problem I'm not aware of. At any rate you be the judge..
I have never said that Jesus is not the "Son of God". To say I have is an out and out untruth.
I have repeatedly said I accept Jesus as the Messiah. Your comment is another twisting of the truth.
I have never denied the resurrection. Once again you twist the truth.
Your comments on my faith are incorrect. You have absolutely no concept of the breadth or depth of my faith. Here we see another personal attack.
Perhaps it is your view that is warped.
Scholars as false teachers. In your dreams. Give me a break!
I said that I had great respect for the Buddhist view of not naming God. They feel that God is to sacred and holy to be named; that they do not have the right to approach such a wonderful divinity. Perhaps our view takes too many liberties. At least they recognize the sacredness of God. BTW when God used the term "I Am" He was really saying it is none of you business. "I am who I am." No name is necessary.
You speak of my false faith. Let me let you in on a view. During the reformation the reformers usurped the term Christian and then created their own and a new faith. It most certainly does not reflect the early church of the Apostles. Fundamentalism is an human invented faith.
You comments on the Qur'an once again show typical fundamentalist arrogance.
As for my changing the Bible I have never done so. It was done by the authors, the editors, the redactors and the early church. These are facts no guesses. They have been shown. The fact is the Bible we have today has be so altered over the centuries.
I couldn't care less that you attack my ideas and even less that you attack me as a person. It is typical fundamentalist arrogance. It certainly is not in the nature of a true discussion but an attempt at proselytization. I am not here proselytize but to present another point of view that is accepted by millions of Christians around the world.
I respect all folks' right to believe as they do. When I have been attacked personally it has not been from members of other faiths, nor agnostics, nor atheists. We each have the right to follow our own path. The only attacks I have had as a person have been from so called Christians. It is no wonder that many are turned off by fundamentalist Christianity.
BTW I had a good laugh when after explaining our conversation a clergy person commented that I must be doing something right. LOL
Once again I wish you the peace of Christ.
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
This is a good spot for this as it relates to fundamentalist ideas. I have just discovered to my horror that my government not only allowed but condones the sending of three Canadian citizen to both Egypt and Syria to have them tortured. Canada has committed a crime against humanity.
Thus they join the US in Guantanamo in continuing crimes against humanity. Guantanamo Bay is illegal and torture takes place.
No wonder the US does not recognize the international court. It wants to be able to do what it likes and get away with it. Appallingly Canada has joined in that criminal activity and furthers it culpability in refusing to demand the return of Khadar.
We have the gall to call ourselves Christian and civilized. What a joke.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thus they join the US in Guantanamo in continuing crimes against humanity. Guantanamo Bay is illegal and torture takes place.
No wonder the US does not recognize the international court. It wants to be able to do what it likes and get away with it. Appallingly Canada has joined in that criminal activity and furthers it culpability in refusing to demand the return of Khadar.
We have the gall to call ourselves Christian and civilized. What a joke.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss;1030003 wrote: Maybe you ought to just quietly and passively resist your government. That will make them think about what they have done!
Look what passive resistance did for mahatma ghandi. Course the British were relatively civilised. Perhaps you believe your troops would open fire on unarmed demonstrators?
Look what passive resistance did for mahatma ghandi. Course the British were relatively civilised. Perhaps you believe your troops would open fire on unarmed demonstrators?
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester;1019463 wrote: Age old argument about self defense, its just a larger scale when it comes at a national level.
Breaking it down on a small scale: Your faced with five men in a alley, one way out, you've tried to reason with them, its you or them, do you kneel and accept what they want to do with you or do you fight for all your worth?
Where in the bible does it cover what you should do?
You have the Old Testament record where Israel defended itself agaisnt outsiders and you have the apparent contradiction of Jesus Christ when he says to turn the other cheek when your struck? You have the book of Revelation and the Books of John explainig that there will be future wars.
Then here you have Ted saying that its apparent to him that war is necessary but Jesus said dont fight be passive do justice and compassion only.
Im asking Ted to clarify biblically where he stand on his apparent contradiction of war being necessary and Jesus condoning it? I was asking him where he gets his rationalization from?
To me its very simple, Jesus was not saying that if some one strikes you, you should allow them to strike you again. (meaning they are hitting you with the intent ot harm) This kind of striking is a slap on the face in challenge.
The passage is as follows:
Mat 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
The primary context isn't exactly war, it isnt even self defense, its a principle of going beyond measure, which was a very odd concept in an age of exact pharaticial rulings. An eyes for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was a systems of measure, it is not a reference to retributive action.
God is not saying do not defend yourself, not at all, he is saying, be fair beyond measure, so that you are a giving person. Be generous.
I believe this passage is very often mis interpreted mostly by taking the verse 39 as a stand alone verse, and you'll have missed the message entirely if you do.
God is largely silent on self defense. In fact on more than one occasion he had to convince his people to go to war and fight for thier own protection, consider the entire period of the Judges for example. Time after time they nation of Iasrael slumped back into passivity until a deliverer was rasied up from among them to fight.
The only new testament principles that govern self defense or war are those I spelled out in post 311. Each man is accountable for his decisions, each nation for corporate decisions, we both live individually before God and are bound to the governments established over us by God (Col 1:6). It is not rationalizing it is livign in the bounds of all Godly principles. The holy Spirit leads by the word of God, we are told to ask for wisdom and then live by it, so we must take all things into consideration.
Back to my small scale senario: God would allow you to defend yourself, he would sanction your self defense, but he would not allow you to torture them in return. Based on biblical principles of Justice not being retributive. In my opinon he woudl allow you to fight enough to escape, if it was not possible he would not hold you in sin for killing someone who tried to kill you.
It is not different in wartime. Each man has to decide whther the war is just, if he decides it is just and his coutnry asks him to fight, he should go and fight, if its an unjust war and his country asks him to fight then he must decide whether to flee, or obey, and or suffer the consequences.
You can call is rationalization if you'd like, but I dont think the bible gives any other options than that. If you think it does I'd like ot hear your ideas and verses you relate it too.
I think Jesus condones war if its biblically just, if its unjust then the deals off and if we go to war then we go it alone, without protection.
My own interpretations are as follows:
an eye for an eye:
In self defense would mean defend yourself to the extent that you are attacked.....and only to that extent.
In justice would mean the punishment should fit the crime.
turn the other cheek:
pick your fights. a slap on the cheek I equate with some minor rudeness....that you don't have to fight over that.
Breaking it down on a small scale: Your faced with five men in a alley, one way out, you've tried to reason with them, its you or them, do you kneel and accept what they want to do with you or do you fight for all your worth?
Where in the bible does it cover what you should do?
You have the Old Testament record where Israel defended itself agaisnt outsiders and you have the apparent contradiction of Jesus Christ when he says to turn the other cheek when your struck? You have the book of Revelation and the Books of John explainig that there will be future wars.
Then here you have Ted saying that its apparent to him that war is necessary but Jesus said dont fight be passive do justice and compassion only.
Im asking Ted to clarify biblically where he stand on his apparent contradiction of war being necessary and Jesus condoning it? I was asking him where he gets his rationalization from?
To me its very simple, Jesus was not saying that if some one strikes you, you should allow them to strike you again. (meaning they are hitting you with the intent ot harm) This kind of striking is a slap on the face in challenge.
The passage is as follows:
Mat 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
The primary context isn't exactly war, it isnt even self defense, its a principle of going beyond measure, which was a very odd concept in an age of exact pharaticial rulings. An eyes for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was a systems of measure, it is not a reference to retributive action.
God is not saying do not defend yourself, not at all, he is saying, be fair beyond measure, so that you are a giving person. Be generous.
I believe this passage is very often mis interpreted mostly by taking the verse 39 as a stand alone verse, and you'll have missed the message entirely if you do.
God is largely silent on self defense. In fact on more than one occasion he had to convince his people to go to war and fight for thier own protection, consider the entire period of the Judges for example. Time after time they nation of Iasrael slumped back into passivity until a deliverer was rasied up from among them to fight.
The only new testament principles that govern self defense or war are those I spelled out in post 311. Each man is accountable for his decisions, each nation for corporate decisions, we both live individually before God and are bound to the governments established over us by God (Col 1:6). It is not rationalizing it is livign in the bounds of all Godly principles. The holy Spirit leads by the word of God, we are told to ask for wisdom and then live by it, so we must take all things into consideration.
Back to my small scale senario: God would allow you to defend yourself, he would sanction your self defense, but he would not allow you to torture them in return. Based on biblical principles of Justice not being retributive. In my opinon he woudl allow you to fight enough to escape, if it was not possible he would not hold you in sin for killing someone who tried to kill you.
It is not different in wartime. Each man has to decide whther the war is just, if he decides it is just and his coutnry asks him to fight, he should go and fight, if its an unjust war and his country asks him to fight then he must decide whether to flee, or obey, and or suffer the consequences.
You can call is rationalization if you'd like, but I dont think the bible gives any other options than that. If you think it does I'd like ot hear your ideas and verses you relate it too.
I think Jesus condones war if its biblically just, if its unjust then the deals off and if we go to war then we go it alone, without protection.
My own interpretations are as follows:
an eye for an eye:
In self defense would mean defend yourself to the extent that you are attacked.....and only to that extent.
In justice would mean the punishment should fit the crime.
turn the other cheek:
pick your fights. a slap on the cheek I equate with some minor rudeness....that you don't have to fight over that.
Christian Fundamentalism
The Roman program was first victory and then justice.
Jesus taught a different program, first justice then victory.
Going back to Phil who lived at the time of Jesus the generally accepted definition of justice was an equitable distribution of the world's resources. Crossan, Borg.
As for the "eye for an eye" that was changed by Jesus in Matt.5:21-22.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jesus taught a different program, first justice then victory.
Going back to Phil who lived at the time of Jesus the generally accepted definition of justice was an equitable distribution of the world's resources. Crossan, Borg.
As for the "eye for an eye" that was changed by Jesus in Matt.5:21-22.
Shalom
Ted:-6