Posted on 04/14/2016 11:16:18 AM PDT by C19fan
Via BuzzFeed, I’m going to be bold and pronounce this the single Trumpiest thing he’s said since the campaign began. Really! Trumpier than him goofing on McCain for being taken prisoner in Vietnam, Trumpier than him goofing on his fans by claiming they’d stick with him even if he shot someone in broad daylight. I’m a lapsed Catholic turned nonbeliever so I’ll let the faithful among our readers correct me, but isn’t this … one of the worst possible answers that a Christian could give to this question? An “eye for an eye” does appear in the Bible, true, but it’s Old Testament; it was specifically repudiated by Jesus himself in the gospel of Matthew in favor of “turn the other cheek,” as John McCormack notes. The whole point of Christianity, I thought, is to resist vengeance and embrace forgiveness, and it’s captured nowhere more succinctly than in the rejection of “an eye for an eye.” So here’s Trump, who’s been half-heartedly pandering to evangelicals since last summer, deciding that the lesson from the Bible that sticks with him is the one about, um, revanchism, which Jesus instructed his disciplines to ignore. It’s like naming Baal your favorite member of the holy trinity.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
It simply proves that Trump has nothing more than a non-believer’s pop-culture familiarity with the bible.
>> Trump on WHAM <<
In all fairness, being interviewed by George Michael is awkward.
My first thought as well. When he gave the land to the Chosen People, God required that they slay everyone else, women, children and cattle, in order to establish (the original) Israel. Especially the Ammonites; in some chapters he scolded them for not having finished that job and letting the Ammonite king live.
As far as the "turn the other cheek" lesson from the gospels, it is a perfect lesson in interpersonal relationships, but does not necessarily apply to affairs of state or the things of Caesar. That job is outlined in Romans.
Treat them kindly, yes. Offer them citizenship, no. If you wanted to become one of the Israelites, you had to mutilate your wang.
The bible insists that people be hospitable to refugees, acting in their best interests, not that we import massive numbers of workers to prevent market forces from setting a reasonable wage, nor welcome an invading army within our citadels.
Would that be his “Two Corinthians” references?
I have heard Ted Cruz say nothing of the Doninionist stuff you are talking about. Provide a link.
Not quite.
Eye for an eye was only applied in one very special case. You struck a pregnant woman so she went into early labor. If both mother and child were not injured beyond that you had to pay a fine.
If either was injured beyond that then "eye for an eye" kicked in.
In the case of cow stealing, you were entitled to four cows back.
If I remember correctly an eye for an eye was intended as a statement of restraint, because the then acceptable response was to decimate the entire tribe of the offender.
A scourge of cords, and drove them all out......
Hell yea!
Besides loving women same as him I like that one too
If I could pick one book?
Isaiah
I know snowflakes here are stuned
Ah, but an eye for an eye covers egregious crimes. Do you think Jesus would want you to allow someone to hack you to pieces? In my mind Jesus was setting the tone for our dealings with each other not a specific reaction to every action.
Completely agree.
which is supposed to contradict what? the bible itself? it cannot, or scripture has lies in it.
For those who haven't memorized the Bible, that verse reads:
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
Yes, it’s a loosening of the prior moral standard.
An “eye for an eye” is simply Biblical phraseology that the punishment should fit the crime. The concept was incorporated into the Bill of Rights. Has nothing to do with revenge.
Ted's dad is Dominionist. Ted's two closest supporters are Dominionist (Glenn Beck & David Barton). Ted's dad 'anointed' Ted as a king.
You do the math.
You are projecting others’ beliefs on him.
A case in point: Phil Robertson and his son Willie Robertson are backing two different candidates. Father and son there, too, but still able to have independent thought.
Trump has been surrounded by liberals he gaits as being close with for decades. Is he subject to your same “guilt by association” math? Or is Trump, once again, subject to a different measure?
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.