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 ...
The two are independent. He didn’t take any of their property, He ejected them from the premises. Isaiah 53 further clarifies that “He had done no violence.”
This means that the punishment should fit the crime. In other words, if you jaywalk, you shouldn’t get the death penalty.
It is not a call for bloody revenge, though that is often how it is interpreted, particularly by people who wish to discredit the Old Testament.
Ditto..
He was asked a Bible verse. And he gave a Bible verse. What’s the problem?
A more concise verse would be in Genesis 9:6..
It does seem Trump is more in tune with a revanchist age, however.
God would rather we choose people who will take a gospel attitude, however He will let us have our fill of hell if we insist. This doesn’t mean the state has to be run by the church. Its standards don’t need to be as exacting as the church.
That’s okay for “a” verse but a little odd when asked for a fave.
I’d been leaning towards Trump, but it IS possible to push something that is good in its context into an obsession.
Which is also where he got the psalm of Devil Came Down To Georgia. I guess a fiddle by itself is enough to beat the most evil being in the creation... not QUITE
At least Trump refers to the bible rather than pushing some Seven Mountains Dominionist garbage that Terd Snuz believes in.
I am almost forced to confess... both of them are weird.
Donald might be a smidgen more competent in practical areas, but frankly our salvation is not in a presidential candidate, not even if we could have the rebirth of Ronald Reagan. It’s in Jesus Christ.
It is always easy to spot someone who knows nothing about the bible when they quote it completely out of context. The most common...
“Eye for an Eye”
“Judge not lest you be judged”
“Turn the other cheek”
I was listening to some BBC presenter talking to a Christian militia in Iraq about a week ago. The smug arrogant Brit was so proud of himself pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of the militia members quoting bible verses like “How can you be in a militia when the bible says thou shall not kill”
The leader replied through a translator who was not very good “Christianity tells us when we are attacked to sell our clothes and buy a weapon.”
The BBC presenter was having none of it and laughed at the apparent ignorance of the militia leader saying the bible says no such thing and then ended the interview.
BUT... As usual, when a liberal tries to define the bible he was wrong. The new testament does indeed say sell your cloak and buy a sword.
And then it never spells out what to do, though apparently chopping off a Roman soldier’s ear to save Jesus is wrong.
The act of martyrdom is taken to a high art form by the gospel. The difference is that Jesus says turn your OWN cheek. He never says bring your NEIGHBORS’ cheeks to their enemies.
Matthew 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
You might not want to open that can of worms, or you’re likely to encounter multiple very inconvenient passages about treating “the alien among you” with compassion and as native born.
Leviticus 19:33-34; Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 10:19
Don’t blame me. I didn’t write it.
More like “an eye, and a couple of limbs, and a kick in the nuts, and a hissy-fit, and a frivolous lawsuit for an eye”
the eye for eye teaching is very important to Christians and Jews
in a world of excessive opporession and injustice, it taught/teaches that punishments should be limited to not fit/not exceed the crime. This reflects justice and high respect for individual liberty and the sanctity of life. The verse came to be interpreted/applied in coordination with the many additional Biblical verses detailing or ‘flushing out’ this concept of just and limited punishments ...such as requiring the guilty to provide the victim with compensatory payment (instead of any actual blinding of a defendant, which would not do the victim any tangible justice...and which in some instances could not be inflictred at any event). All in all, allowing for various opinions of course, the cited verse is stil a very important part of Biblical teaching. It surely is not something to be ridiculed...imho.
This isn't necessarily an analogous situation: Jesus wasn't attacked. I wouldn't want to get in the weeds of this: I think, for example, that Luther was acting in the example of Jesus when he condemned the sellers of indulgences, turning the church into a den of robbers, but the issue of when to turn the other cheek and when to demonstrate zeal for the Father's house is a difficult issue.
But I'd like to get back to the original issue, and propose a different solution. I have read the Bible perhaps 20 times, and I say that the same way Paul "boasted" about his Jewishness, which is to say I am not proud of this, I should have read it perhaps 200 times more. But if someone were to ask me my favorite Bible verse, I would have to admit that I don't have one. It is like asking who is my favorite child--or, a better analogy, what aspect of God's existence is my favorite. There is none; I am grateful for every yot and tittle. Which is one of the billion reasons I would never run for President, because most people, including I fear most people in the church, would perceive that as a politically astute dodge, which is the opposite of what it is.
I have no problem with that—We Christians (and conservatives) have been turning the other cheek and getting slapped silly for far too long.
“The difference is that Jesus says turn your OWN cheek”
That right there is the crux of it. It reminds me of a James Madison quote [paraphrasing]:
“The government can’t give to charity because true charity is not given with someone else’s money”
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.