Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Double Standard?
Collapse
X
-
"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostPS, Sam you never answered my last post to you. Still waiting"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
The Colorado folks aren't the only ones...
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAnd you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
I guess you can't so you are avoiding admitting you are wrong and trying to toss the "blame" back on me by saying I am boring and rude.
That answers my question right there. Thanks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAnd you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAnd you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostTranslation: I can't admit i'm wrong so I"d better ignore the question to hide that fact.
People who think they can malign others and then demand answers to their questions are on the wrong track and ought not to be enabled."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostA simple Google search would reveal to Sparko or anyone else the relevant SCOTUS cases and precedent. I'm under no obligation to humor someone's question when the preceding paragraphs show such an obvious lack of good faith, to say nothing of good taste.
People who think they can malign others and then demand answers to their questions are on the wrong track and ought not to be enabled.
I guess you can't prove your assertions after all. It's the old "yes I made a bald assertion but I can't be bothered to show you any proof, google it yourself" dodge
Comment
-
Joshua Feuerstein is that pastor in Arizona who makes the really embarrassing YouTube videos. As in, 9/11 conspiracy theory type videos."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostSo, in your scenario, why would Jesus say "It is enough" when the disciples said that they had two swords in the group? If His intent was to have the disciples prepared to defend themselves, 1) why were only two swords considered sufficient and 2) why did He rebuke Peter for engaging in self defense?
But since such a response would, in fact, be condescending, rude, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, maybe I should man up and answer your questions.
Some commentaries I've read suggest that Jesus' response was sarcastic. Here he had just told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense, even to the point of forgoing protection from the elements ("sell your cloak"), and his disciples say, "Um, we've got a couple here already." So Jesus, realizing that his disciples missed the point -- again -- rolls his eyes and says, "That's enough."
Other commentaries say that Jesus' "That's enough" was him indicating that the conversation was over, as in "That's enough talking. Go and do what I've instructed."
So why did Jesus rebuke Peter for striking out at the men who had come to arrest Jesus? I suppose, for one, it was dumb of Peter to try and take on Roman soldiers, and by restoring calm to the situation and healing the stricken man, Jesus saved Peter's life and the rest of the disciples, men who would have a very important mission in the coming years. Also notice that Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and not to cast it aside or abandon it, which is hard to reconcile with your belief that Jesus did not believe in carrying weapons for personal defense (for that matter, why did the disciples even have a pair of swords in the first place?). Furthermore, it was Jesus' entire purpose to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and so Jesus didn't want Peter trying to fight to rescue him.
Now how about you answer some of my questions: If we are not supposed to defend ourselves with weapons then why did Paul commend someone like Samson who went on several vicious rampages through Philistine territory and who redeemed himself by bringing down a palace on top of his enemies? Or King David who was a man after God's own heart and died with a sword in his hand?
And my second question: Should you or should you not do everything in your power to protect someone from violence? Suppose your family is the victim of a home invasion. Should you let the invaders have their way with your family, or should you take up arms to defend yourself?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIn light of your recent posts to Sparko, I suppose I could just say, "Commentaries are only a Google search away, so figure it out for yourself," and you would be fine with that, right?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostBut since such a response would, in fact, be condescending, rude, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, maybe I should man up and answer your questions.
Some commentaries I've read suggest that Jesus' response was sarcastic. Here he had just told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense, even to the point of forgoing protection from the elements ("sell your cloak"), and his disciples say, "Um, we've got a couple here already." So Jesus, realizing that his disciples missed the point -- again -- rolls his eyes and says, "That's enough."
Other commentaries say that Jesus' "That's enough" was him indicating that the conversation was over, as in "That's enough talking. Go and do what I've instructed."
So why did Jesus rebuke Peter for striking out at the men who had come to arrest Jesus? I suppose, for one, it was dumb of Peter to try and take on Roman soldiers, and by restoring calm to the situation and healing the stricken man, Jesus saved Peter's life and the rest of the disciples, men who would have a very important mission in the coming years. Also notice that Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and not to cast it aside or abandon it, which is hard to reconcile with your belief that Jesus did not believe in carrying weapons for personal defense (for that matter, why did the disciples even have a pair of swords in the first place?). Furthermore, it was Jesus' entire purpose to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and so Jesus didn't want Peter trying to fight to rescue him.
Your statement that Jesus "told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense" is an extra-biblical assumption you've introduced into the text. Not only did Jesus rebuke Peter's attempt at self defense but from the time of the Gospels through the writings of the ante-Nicean Church Fathers, we find no support for lethal violence, even in self-defense. If Jesus intended His disciples to use weapons to kill in self-defense, we have absolutely no evidence that His intent was respected, even during extensive persecutions. In fact, we have distinct evidence to the contrary, as Christians like Peter, Paul and Polycarp were martyred without violent resistance.
Swords were not only used to fight other humans but also used to ward off wild animals.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNow how about you answer some of my questions: If we are not supposed to defend ourselves with weapons then why did Paul commend someone like Samson who went on several vicious rampages through Philistine territory and who redeemed himself by bringing down a palace on top of his enemies? Or King David who was a man after God's own heart and died with a sword in his hand?
And my second question: Should you or should you not do everything in your power to protect someone from violence? Suppose your family is the victim of a home invasion. Should you let the invaders have their way with your family, or should you take up arms to defend yourself?
To your first question, one should preference the explicit commands of Jesus over the inferred allowances one takes form Paul's commendations in any serious exegesis."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View Post"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#001320]Even people skeptical of Christian pacifism have to acknowledge that such a reading lends itself to Jesus creating the appearance of an armed rebellion to facilitate his being "numbered with transgressors" (rebels).
It's talking about his being put to death as if a transgressor, on behalf of all the transgressors in the world. He who knew no sin became sin for us.
Comment
-
I lean toward Sam's thinking purely for the case of self-defense (the early Christians and what they believed do deserve a vote); I would consider the calculus different if it involved the defense of others. I think it would be way too legalistic to, say, condemn the shooting of an active shooter in an elementary school."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI think a far more obvious meaning for "NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS" is that of being considered to be a criminal. That is, that Jesus was condemned as a criminal and executed with criminals. Jesus was presumably quoting Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
It's talking about his being put to death as if a transgressor, on behalf of all the transgressors in the world. He who knew no sin became sin for us."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
72 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
390 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment