I'm Pretty Sure That Jesus Wasn't Talking About This

[quietthinker]

to me that says be partakers not of darkness but of light. What Light did He bring forth?

Jesus revealed the Fathers heart, a heart contrary to how all generations have understood ....and even the Prophets saw very very dimly.....a God who was prepared to die for his creation....and did die.... even the angels were gobsmacked.

 

[amadeus]

Then why does our Pledge of Allegiance say "one nation under GOD?" And our currency read " In GOD we trust?"

Both of those things were added under President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950's. We were a nation for about 175 years before that. I was in elementary school when they change the Pledge of Allegiance. We said the Pledge every day in the morning before doing anything else. When the law changed we had to relearn the Pledge the new way.

 

[amadeus]

Lincoln, if you read everything about him, and all of his quotes, was anti slavery in any form. He said he was anti slavery and could never remember a time when he wasn’t.

If you thought I was talking about Lincoln on that I either stated it wrong or you misunderstood me.

Some black people have ought against Lincoln because he did compromise on some things to get some other things accomplished. He worked harder to the Union intact than he did to eliminate slavery. He wanted to eliminate slavery but he did not directly go to war as much for that as he did to stop the secession of states from the nation.

Lincoln knew he could not get everything done he really wanted to do. Even the Emancipation Proclamation did not have much power to it. It only applied to slaves who were residents of states in active rebellion against the USA. Slave holding states not in rebellion at the moment were not affected by the Proclamation. Slavery was protected under law in those states still. Black people in the north being treated as 2nd class citizens were not helped.

Lincoln was hated in the southern states, but even in the north most people did not believe that black people should be equal to white people. Lincoln was an unusual good politician when politicians as a group were not well liked by most people. He died because he was willing and trying to do more than most politicians worried about their jobs would not have even tried to do. Sure more was needed than what Lincoln did, but in that period of time I doubt that anyone else could have done better. His efforts instigated war.

Even on this forum in a last couple of years there was at least one person who felt about Lincoln like so many in the defeated South felt about him before, during and after that very bloody fight of brother against brother. Yet 100 years later how much remained undone? Ask the assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr.!

 

[amadeus]

You know even Jesus hates all that is evil.

And every person born to woman since that first disobedience of Adam and Eve has been evil. All of them, which includes you and me have sinned and come short of God's glory and that is evil. When you have no sin at all in you and you truly know all that Jesus knew then you will up to accusing any person see for the evil you see. Jesus was seeing their hearts when he came against them. If we cannot see their hearts we need to control our tongues. This is why Jesus told us Not to judge with that final judgement. Who is qualified to judge a righteous and correct judgement but God?

 

[April_Rose]

I never said that I don't have sin in me,.. but being disrespectful towards the military and supporting abortion is evil isn't it? AKA being Kamala Harris. This song fits her to a T.

 

[amigo de christo]

Ok, lets sum this up a little bit.

@April_Rose starts out this thread making the statement I'm Pretty Sure That Jesus Wasn't Talking About This…referring to verse that tells us not to resist evil and to turn the other cheek.

And then she says…

When He was talking about letting people slap us and just stand there and take it, I don't think He meant for us literally to become punching bags,.. so if that's why you guys don't believe in self-defense then that's just crazy in my mind.

Although I see her point, that is in fact how most of the Apostles and early Christians took it. No resistance and no defense and no violence. Now is that what Christ intended? That is where the debates start.

The topic is not simple. There are few beliefs that merge here…some continue to this day.

The belief of non-violence…the belief that nothing in this world matters…and because Christ suffered so much for us, some think He wants us to suffer too. Or some believe that we should suffer for Christ. And the belief you should die for Christianity if pressed to. And then all the beliefs in between.

Martyrdom…
This develops into a religious doctrine of its own. The belief that, if challenged, one should suffer or die for their beliefs….martyrdom.
Martyrdom had four categories….
1.Those that were captured and martyred.
2.Those that offered themselves up for martyrdom, actually called voluntary or spontaneous martyrs.
3.Those that gave up their faith under the threat of martyrdom, but later recanted
and desired to rejoin the faith…they were called lapses.
4.And those that gave up their faith under the threat of martyrdom and never returned.

Non resistance to evil...so this carries over...
So then if a thief beats you and wants what you have…you should not resist and hand over your belongings. If He kills your family, you should pray for them.

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

1st Peter 2:20-21 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Why did Christ and the Apostles teach this? That is the question. Some say it is because nothing in this life matters. Our lives and the lives of our family does not matter, our property does not matter and suffering is the life of Christians. Even today, there are people that embrace suffering and there are those that feel that it brings some sort of satisfaction to Christ. Proves our Love and devotion? That is something that people can debate. But you cannot blame Fundamentalists for believing this, because this is, basically, what was taught in the biblical era and continued on until Christianity and the Romans merged.

Now the other question is; Why would Christ tell Christians to be non-violent when God has never been non- violent? Again this is a debatable question. But what is not debatable is that God is violent…He always was and always will be.

In post #102 I give a very small number of available scriptures to prove this. If you want more, I can post a lot more direct statements and actions to prove the truth.

Some people have reacted like I am insulting God. What I and the scriptures are only offending...is false beliefs. God is not insulted by the scriptures, God is not afraid of the scriptures…that is where truth is.

I see it so many times, people that come to the Bible to cherry pick scriptures to support what they believe. They do not read the Bible to learn…they are going there to try to superimpose their beliefs on the Bible. In this case some people have a concept of good, a concept of what is a Godly character defined in their heads, and they do not like that bubble popped. There are aspects of the 613 Mosaic Laws that completely shock them and put them in denial.

Number one, we cannot judge God, for one we do not know or understand “the Big Picture.” When God made the Mosaic Law regarding war and the acquisition of land, God was not sinning or doing wrong. And there were a lot of Laws and statements in the Old Testament that are not inline with Christian beliefs….that does not make them wrong.

Christ was not sinning when He took a rope referred to as a scourge and ran the money changers out of the Temple.

Christ was not sinning when he warned people of the punishment of hell.

In the future Christ will not be wrong or sinning when He takes out a large portions of the populace on earth during the events of Revelation.

Why do people think that violence is sinful or wrong? And why do they not want to accept that God is violent?

I have already explained this; Violence in itself is not wrong or sinful. That is determined by the purpose, reason, intent, or what caused the violence. God did not sin or do wrong when He caused the flood that killed most everyone. God did not sin or do wrong when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. God made a lot of gruesome threats in the Old Testament, but that was not God sinning. As God said…vengeance is mine...in the context that He would order Israelites to kill all that breath.

So facing the facts, is knowing the truth. Strange as it may seem, there are Christians that do not like truth. On this particular topic they create the character of God in their own mind and try to superimpose it on Christianity. It is a false and incorrect belief, but it is a religious freedom. You can have Christ playing “Tiptoe through the tulips” as far as I am concerned, that is your right.

So God is not non-violent…in fact He is rather violent when necessary. So what does that mean for us?
Should we be pacifists or not?
Does it mean that as a country we should not resist communism?
Does it mean that as individuals we should strive to be loving, kind, slow to anger, non confrontations?
Does it mean that it is a sin to defend yourself or your family…or even others?

Overall with Christianity…Catholics nor Protestants have demonstrated the belief of non-violence. There were several lengthy and serious wars between the Catholics and Protestants…so they fight! They serve as armed police and military.

Does that make it right? Should we not resist evil? Should we not defend ourselves?
This is a legitimate debate.

As far in our society…true pacifists exist in a parasitical social arrangement, they live in a society with various forms of security and protections….armed police, and military members die protecting them, but they do not take any responsibility themselves.

Christ and what the apostels taught are for us . I know for sure the apostles HAD the SPIRIT of CHRIST .
THUS they took him to mean this . I say let us follow That pattern .

 

[Brakelite]

I would revisit the idea that God will destroy sinners.....why, because it's inconsistent with his character. Sounds odd? considering there are so many passages which speak in those terms?....hmmmm, I suspect men will destroy themselves....how? maybe with the use of advanced nuclear weapons when they attack the New Jerusalem?

Something else to consider....why would he resurrect the wicked for the purpose of destroying them again....they are dead, why not leave them dead?.

I'm going to think about this some more before I reply. Hopefully I don't forget.

 

[Grailhunter]

Christ and what the apostels taught are for us . I know for sure the apostles HAD the SPIRIT of CHRIST .
THUS they took him to mean this . I say let us follow That pattern .

I agree that Christ and the Apostles taught pacifism.

 

[Jacob28]

When He was talking about letting people slap us and just stand there and take it, I don't think He meant for us literally to become punching bags,.. so if that's why you guys don't believe in self-defense then that's just crazy in my mind.

Did Jesus become a punching bag?

 

[Grailhunter]

Did Jesus become a punching bag?

I think a punching bag "got" treated better.

 

[Jacob28]

I think a punching bag "got" treated better.

Should we remember what forum people think, or what Scripture says?

 

[Grailhunter]

Should we remember what forum people think, or what Scripture says?

LOL Many times they are not the same.

 

[Jacob28]

LOL Many times they are not the same.

Do you do not know which should be remembered?

 

[Grailhunter]

Do you do not know which should be remembered?

Should we remember what forum people think, or what Scripture says?

 

[Jacob28]

Christ and what the apostels taught are for us . I know for sure the apostles HAD the SPIRIT of CHRIST .
THUS they took him to mean this . I say let us follow That pattern .

Do you follow this pattern?

 

[Grailhunter]

Do you follow this pattern?

I try to avoid this pattern.
Make your point or move on.

 

[Jacob28]

I try to avoid this pattern.
Make your point or move on.

Making vague and unscriptural statements about God serves none of His purposes. Telling other people "let us" what they are to do is of no merit.

If I do move on, it will have nothing to do with what you are saying here. Sound good?

 

[Brakelite]

I agree that Christ and the Apostles taught pacifism.

Why did they do you think?

 

[Grailhunter]

Why did they do you think?

Preverbal can of worms!
The Bible does not explain that...so that is the end of the road for that...biblically.
The turn the other cheek statement... was a disagreement with the Mosaic Law. Was He pointing it at the Jews only? Either way the Mosaic Law has nothing to do with Christians. And this point is irrelevant because it is obvious that the Apostles believed He was preaching Pacifism and none resistance.
At the same time they were instructed to obey the governments ... with no regard as to if they are good or bad. So if God puts all governments in place, that will bring up debates. If we are not suppose to resist evil governments like communism, that will brings up some debates.
There too, there was no focus on the family in the New Testament. Marriage is allowed by concession...celibacy was preferred. Some of Paul's explanation for this, is that the tribulations were expected to occur very soon...so why have loved ones to watch die. Of course this brings up other debates. Some believe that Christ was saying all that would happen before the generation would pass...another debate.
But one thing for sure...in the Old Testament, procreation and producing children was part of the religion and the culture...there is none of that in the New Testament...in short order after the biblical era sex is considered dirty, nasty, and sinful...so precreation does not thrive under those conditions.
The end of days belief was very prominent. Everyone was under the impression that Christ would return...in days. They never referred to His return happening in years, centuries, millenniums.

It would be very debatable, if the reason for all of this...the reason for the lack of interest in marriages and families...the preaching of pacifism, and the disinterest in what type of Government was in place, and not addressing slavery...was because Christ was going to return so soon that none of it mattered.

So that opens up a can of worms, particularly for the Fundamentalists because it puts them into tap dancing apologists.
I am not a fundamentalist, so although my beliefs are rooted in the Bible, I believe that God continued to interact with people for the next 1956 years. And that is important too and is significant. So I am also interested in the 1956 years of Christian history and divine events that followed the close of the Biblical era.

Because of that, looking at the big picture I can speculate about possibilities. But speculation and possibilities is all that it is though. Why did the messiah turn out to be a God, instead of a Man?
Why didn't Christ return soon?
I can speculate that something changed and go on with my religion without too much concern. Am I right? Who knows. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No. All I know is that my explanation is better than all the religious tap dancing.

 

[Jacob28]

Preverbal can of worms!
The Bible does not explain that...so that is the end of the road for that...biblically.
The turn the other cheek statement... was a disagreement with the Mosaic Law. Was He pointing it at the Jews only? Either way the Mosaic Law has nothing to do with Christians. And this point is irrelevant because it is obvious that the Apostles believed He was preaching Pacifism and none resistance.
At the same time they were instructed to obey the governments ... with no regard as to if they are good or bad. So if God puts all governments in place, that will bring up debates. If we are not suppose to resist evil governments like communism, that will brings up some debates.
There too, there was no focus on the family in the New Testament. Marriage is allowed by concession...celibacy was preferred. Some of Paul's explanation for this, is that the tribulations were expected to occur very soon...so why have loved ones to watch die. Of course this brings up other debates. Some believe that Christ was saying all that would happen before the generation would pass...another debate.
But one thing for sure...in the Old Testament, procreation and producing children was part of the religion and the culture...there is none of that in the New Testament...in short order after the biblical era sex is considered dirty, nasty, and sinful...so precreation does not thrive under those conditions.
The end of days belief was very prominent. Everyone was under the impression that Christ would return...in days. They never referred to His return happening in years, centuries, millenniums.

It would be very debatable, if the reason for all of this...the reason for the lack of interest in marriages and families...the preaching of pacifism, and the disinterest in what type of Government was in place, and not addressing slavery...was because Christ was going to return so soon that none of it mattered.

So that opens up a can of worms, particularly for the Fundamentalists because it puts them into tap dancing apologists.
I am not a fundamentalist, so although my beliefs are rooted in the Bible, I believe that God continued to interact with people for the next 1956 years. And that is important too and is significant. So I am also interested in the 1956 years of Christian history and divine events that followed the close of the Biblical era.

Because of that, looking at the big picture I can speculate about possibilities. But speculation and possibilities is all that it is though. Why did the messiah turn out to be a God, instead of a Man?
Why didn't Christ return soon?
I can speculate that something changed and go on with my religion without too much concern. Am I right? Who knows. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No. All I know is that my explanation is better than all the religious tap dancing.

Best wishes finding original thoughts upon whatever valid Divine premises might be articulated.

At times, I have thought I found a bit of sensibility beyond the common default answers. It is a desperate little game. I have learned to ask only a very few people questions not from standard theological models.

Such as: Why are shed blood, human worship, and sentient plasticity common currency within Spirituality on Earth?