Posted on 04/04/2009 1:53:15 AM PDT by valkyry1
> Its a big country, and we need more conservatives. Come join the party! We are not New Zealand, but we have some pretty mountains and coastlines.
Perhaps one day I will!
> Allowing evil to flourish by turning our cheek is hardly biblical.
It’s certainly not practical. As to whether it’s biblical, I’m not certain. Matthew 5:39 is problematic with that notion, because that is precisely what it says:
“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.”
“Resist not Evil” probably means precisely that — else why would Christ say it?
Rev. Raymond Kwong:
“Jesus is dealing with personal insults here rather than bodily injury. He is giving a general principle on how to respond after being insulted. It has nothing to do with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one’s life or wife threatened.”
Mat 19:3-8 - The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
_______________________________________
So, Jesus is telling us what marriage was FROM THE BEGINNING. In your version of events, man, woman and marriage did not even exist in the beginning, but millions and perhaps billions of years later.
_______________________________________
In Genesis 1:27, where God says he created man in his image, the word created is the Hebrew verb bara’ in the Qal tense. That has the meaning of God shaping and forming, usually from nothing. Doesn’t sound like man evolved from something else if God shaped and formed him/her.
______________________________________
John 1:3 - All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Evolution, which you have stated that you believe in, is based on the theory that man evolved from animals. IOW, animals had a direct causative function in the creation of man. That makes God and Jesus out to be a liar, because the Word of God, Jesus, asserts that Jesus created everything, and nothing was created that Jesus did not create.
You want more?
________________________________
It is a non sequitur. My comment was that your posts (that I later identified as evolution thread posts) belie your claim to believe in God. You, then, mentioned the totally unrelated subject of About (Home) pages on FR. That ‘does not follow’. That is the meaning of non sequitur - that does not follow.
> Rev. Raymond Kwong:
> “Jesus is dealing with personal insults here rather than bodily injury. He is giving a general principle on how to respond after being insulted. It has nothing to do with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one’s life or wife threatened.”
But that isn’t what the verse says. Being smitten on the cheek is certainly a physical attack and Jesus certainly says that the believer is to turn the other cheek rather than retaliating. He reinforces this by saying “Do not resist Evil.”
Rev Kwong’s explanation does not work, unfortunately — it’s a nice try, tho’.
> Every worker held a weapon in one hand and each builder wore his sword at his side - Nehemiah 4:17-18
Interestingly, scripture is silent as to whether Nehemiah was a righteous man or a wicked one, and whether what he did was right or wrong. As the book of Nehemiah is an autobiography, we have only his word for it that he felt what he did was righteous.
However, a comparison between his actions and the Laws that he claimed to be upholding makes for a fascinating study and an instructive one — particularly when projected forward to the practises of the Pharisees of Christ’s time.
What might have happened if a few of the workers in NY had been able to follow the same advice?
> Evolution, which you have stated that you believe in, is based on the theory that man evolved from animals. IOW, animals had a direct causative function in the creation of man. That makes God and Jesus out to be a liar, because the Word of God, Jesus, asserts that Jesus created everything, and nothing was created that Jesus did not create.
God created animals. He therefore created Man, the latter being a progression from the former. There is no contradiction or inconsistency there: scientists and engineers do this all the time whenever they prototype. Monkeys were created before Mankind and they served as God’s prototypes for Mankind. The DNA similarities between Chimps and Orangutans and Mankind supports this viewpoint independently.
> So, Jesus is telling us what marriage was FROM THE BEGINNING. In your version of events, man, woman and marriage did not even exist in the beginning, but millions and perhaps billions of years later.
It could be said with equal validity that in your version of events marriage did not even exist in the beginning, but six days later.
No, marriage was from the beginning. Animals don’t marry, they mate. When Animals evolved into Humans in the forms of Adam and Eve marriage became relevant.
> It is a non sequitur. My comment was that your posts (that I later identified as evolution thread posts) belie your claim to believe in God. You, then, mentioned the totally unrelated subject of About (Home) pages on FR. That ‘does not follow’. That is the meaning of non sequitur - that does not follow.
How tiresome. From my About Page:
“It used to be I had a religion, which was Christian in a fundamental sort-of-way. A few things happened to me in my life. I now have a profound Faith in God, Christ, His Saints and Apostles but Alas! No religion. I know that I am a Saint. And I know where I am going. I know whose I am and whom I serve. I see this as a positive change. I’d be interested in your views on this subject.”
Note carefully: profound Faith in God. His Saints. And His Apostles. Not a member of any organized religion. All publicly stated, all available to you to read (or in your case, not) before throwing around false accusations about me being a non-believer.
We’re done.
> Note that these the purpose of these weapons was self defense. It certainly worked, and did so without violence.
Ought those workers to have been building a wall around Jerusalem in the first place? What does the Bible say about that? Did they have any business defending themselves in this manner? If so, from whom? And why?
> What might have happened if a few of the workers in NY had been able to follow the same advice?
I don’t dispute that concealed-carry and self-defense are bloody good ideas: they are, and I support them. But not with Scripture because I can’t: Scripture doesn’t support Christians doing these things. When we do, it is a case of doing “the Lesser of Two Evils”.
As I’ve said, as Christians we are not always given the choice between doing Right and doing Wrong: if we were, life would be easier. As often as not, we are given the choice between doing Wrong and doing Wronger, where the alternative often is to die or to allow someone else to die. War is like that, and so was the situation in NY. It would have been Wrong to shoot the shooter. And it would have been Wronger not to.
Therefore, best to pick the Lesser of Two Evils, shoot the shooter and seek forgiveness: the Lesser of Two Evils was the best choice available.
The alternatives were death and/or allow the shooter to kill others: both Wronger: the Greater of Two Evils. And thus a poor choice.
No, animals were not created in the image of God.
> No, animals were not created in the image of God.
The Bible does not say that.
-------------------------------------------------------
To me, your statement does not square with your argument that it is not what God would want us to do. Yet you ENVY the very thought of self defense which means not turning the other cheek. You are, in my opinion, idolizing the weapons of self defense. Have you repented for that statement?
-------------------------------------------------------
You said.........Put up or shut up.
------------------------------------------------------
That, to me, is very unbecoming and down right RUDE. You are not a very good example of what God wants to hear from someone who wants to follow His Word. You need to repent for that as well.
In general, I do not believe you are what you say you are and in addition you have hijacked this thread and used it to argue with fellow FReepers (creating your own talking point thread) which is in violation with Jim's rules. Have you repented for that as well?
No need to reply. I respect the rules of this board and will not engage with you further since doing so would keep the thread hijacking you created to continue.
You just make up your own Bible and make it say what you want it to say.
It is clear - Man was created in the image of God. Not animals.
What wild and wacky claim will you make next - that God grants animals the grace of salvation right along with man?
Wow, whatever God you believe in, it ain’t the God of the Bible. That’s some wacky stuff you’re coming up with.
> No need to reply. I respect the rules of this board and will not engage with you further since doing so would keep the thread hijacking you created to continue.
I think a right-of-reply is necessary, despite your kind offer that I not respond to you.
If rude people make sweeping and unfair characterizations of one’s Faith and beliefs, defending one’s self against that is not “thread hijacking”, that’s self-defense.
Moreover, hit-and-run posts — like yours — are just plain cowardly. If you choose to engage, as you have, at least have the common decency to defend your attacks, rather than running away.
As to whether I need to repent for anything I said — thanks for your viewpoint, I’ll feel free to ignore that.
I have nothing further to say. Good day to you, now buzz off.
True, but that armed off-duty cop was violating the law and violating the posted “no gun zone” signs in the mall.
And the fact remains the shooter chose it for that reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.