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

[quietthinker]

If you are a pacifist ...I am ok with that...if you tell me that God is a pacifist ...I have already given you the scriptures that prove you are wrong hand done....so now your debate is with the Bible...not me.

I would say your debate is with the character of God.....is he contradictory as you are saying; one day he behaves like this and another day he behaves like that....or is he consistent always.....the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

 

[TheslightestID]

Because Jesus “ turned the other cheek”—— I don’t have to....

Are you the savior of tbe world? I think not.

The concept is really quite simple to many of us, but for you, I'll try to explain.

See, Jesus knew what he had to do, so why resist and make it worse?

If someone is threatening bodily harm to someone and their family out of pure meaness that is another thing altogether (can you see the difference?) So, if you want to be a coward, and not stand up for youself, of worse yet, your family, that is completely up to you, but personally, I think I'll do what I can to help.

Rev 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur


Hope that helps.

 

[April_Rose]

I strongly disagree with you on this. I will say no more unless you ask me.

I am actually really curious on your thoughts about this.

I did not have the time to watch this.....when he says , “ Never give up” , what was he talking about? Never “ give up” your tax returns?

Seriously? Do I even need to explain this to you?

 

[GracePeace]

That's fine. What I said isn't true is your statement:"Why was Peter armed? Irrelevant--he was not obeying Christ by striking people which is how you're telling people to interpret that verse and what you're telling people to do."

I never said any such thing.
And quite frankly it's very disappointing to read yet another person claiming I said something and taking issue with it, when in truth I never said what is accused.

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Wasn't it your intention to object to my rejection of violence based on Peter's violence in the Garden?

You said, "Paul was stoned to death but resurrected afterward--it's suspected this was when he had his vision of heaven."
The actual scripture you cite does not support what you said.
Paul wasn't dead, he wasn't resurrected. Had that been true the scriptures would have stated that since recording the death and resurrection is detailed with regard to Jesus. Had the same happened to Paul it would have said so too.

What was the point? He offered no violent resistance. Even if you reject what is obvious reality that he died and afterward was resurrected through prayer it means nothing--that wasn't my point. As you see, no violence occurred to protect him nor as a reprisal.

 

[GracePeace]

Of course not....go try to convert them...LOL

I am an ex Muslim. I have no problem talking with Muslims. I am learning Christianity right now. When I'm done I'll be doing more of that.

That said, Jesus said "be shrewd as serpents"--it would be a breaking of this commandment for me, a White looking person who stands out like a sore thumb among them, to go preach the Gospel (unless I have some special gift to protect me). Better one of their own convert and secretly preach pretending to be an Imam (which happens).

Moreover, no one decides "I will go", God has to send them--not based off internet goading or a dare. That is foolish.

Have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that to the readers, who can read your comments for themselves, to figure out what you said.

A day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day. It is a riddle that means this instant anytime you say it. But of course people use it to explain why they believed they were living in the last days...and they were not. But the explanation itself is blasphemous because it implies that God is to stupid to tell time.

Again, you joined their religion--they are authoritative in it not you.
If you disagree with them on their religion, saying they erred, guess which of you are wrong.

So anyway none of this is a issue for me because I am not a Fundamentalist.
You can say anything you want to say about pacifism...you can be a pacifist.

Well you go back and forth--you argue from the text, then argue against it.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Are you the savior of tbe world? I think not.

The concept is really quite simple to many of us, but for you, I'll try to explain.

See, Jesus knew what he had to do, so why resist and make it worse?

If someone is threatening bodily harm to someone and their family out of pure meaness that is another thing altogether (can you see the difference?) So, if you want to be a coward, and not stand up for youself, of worse yet, your family, that is completely up to you, but personally, I think I'll do what I can to help.

Rev 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur


Hope that helps.

Some interesting thoughts here....they have nothing to do with the point I was making ....thanks for the condescending remarks though!

 

[TheslightestID]

Some interesting thoughts here....they have nothing to do with the point I was making ....thanks for the condescending remarks though!

Yet you will not clarify your very unclear point and just leave it hanging? Or maybe got your point after all and there is nothing to clarify?

 

[CadyandZoe]

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.

April, I like your posts because you ask a lot of important questions. Please continue to keep them coming.

Jesus does not want us to become punching bags. But he does challenge us to be at peace with other men (and women) to the degree that they let us. It takes courage to allow someone to strike me on the face, if the goal is to win that person to Christ and save them from damnation. I wouldn't allow just anyone to strike me, but if allowing someone to strike me might result in a convert to Christ, I would allow it. Some occasions require passive resistance.

 

[April_Rose]

April, I like your posts because you ask a lot of important questions. Please continue to keep them coming.

Jesus does not want us to become punching bags. But he does challenge us to be at peace with other men (and women) to the degree that they let us. It takes courage to allow someone to strike me on the face, if the goal is to win that person to Christ and save them from damnation. I wouldn't allow just anyone to strike me, but if allowing someone to strike me might result in a convert to Christ, I would allow it. Some occasions require passive resistance.

You're braver than me,.. I wouldn't allow anybody to strike me no matter what. I can't cope with pain too well I'm afraid.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

I think to turn the other cheek is to not repay evil for evil. But at the same time I think we have a God given right to defend our families and friends. There is no greater love than to lay your life down for a Freind. We have the God given blessing to have a sword and a constitutional right as well.

Did Jesus really want or expect people to “ pluck out their eye” if they ever looked upon something with lust?
If somebody breaks into my home to rape my daughter am I supposed to sit there and do nothing, “ Turn the other cheek”, in other words.....

All of this, taken in context ,was to show the self- Righteous Pharisees Of His day , who thought that they were perfect, what real Perfection looked like.....he was trying to show them their need for Grace and their need for Him....

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Yet you will not clarify your very unclear point and just leave it hanging? Or maybe got your point after all and there is nothing to clarify?

As “ YOU” say....” the concept was really quite simple”

Nobody had to break this down to me when I first heard it....so what is your problem ? Do I have to “ explain” it to you? Could “ you” be as dumb as you accuse “ me” of being?

If you don’t “ get it” it would be a waste of time to try to explain it.....

 

[April_Rose]

Aha, I sort of figured that the "slap" that Jesus is referring to was a figurative one and it was really representing insults.



What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek? | GotQuestions.org

 

[GracePeace]

Aha, I sort of figured that the "slap" that Jesus is referring to was a figurative one and it was really representing insults.



What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek? | GotQuestions.org

I could agree with the article AND advocate non-violence based on the examples of Jesus and His Apostles--the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[April_Rose]

I could agree with the article AND advocate non-violence based on the examples of Jesus and His Apostles--the two are not mutually exclusive.

So then are you saying that you were mistaken before?

 

[GracePeace]

So then are you saying that you were mistaken before?

"Non-violence, based on the examples of Jesus and His Apostles [details in many posts I've made], and this interpretation of 'turning the other cheek' are not mutually exclusive. "

 

[TheslightestID]

As “ YOU” say....” the concept was really quite simple”

Nobody had to break this down to me when I first heard it....so what is your problem ? Do I have to “ explain” it to you? Could “ you” be as dumb as you accuse “ me” of being?

If you don’t “ get it” it would be a waste of time to try to explain it.....

Again, if you cannot explain it, maybe there isn't anything to explain.

 

[GracePeace]

So then are you saying that you were mistaken before?

Why would a tenet of verbal non-aggression (as is being inculcated here) be mutually exclusive with a tenet of physical non-aggression? They're just two aspects of the same life of love and peace.

 

[April_Rose]

Why would a tenet of verbal non-aggression (as is being inculcated here) be mutually exclusive with a tenet of physical non-aggression? They're just two aspects of the same life of love and peace.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[GracePeace]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

Verbal non-aggression and physical non-aggression are not at odds--it's not like you can't have physical non-aggression just because you have verbal non-aggression.

 

[April_Rose]

Verbal non-aggression and physical non-aggression are not at odds--it's not like you can't have physical non-aggression just because you have verbal non-aggression.

Oh.