A Texas Welcome...come on in.

[Shad]

No, not sarcasm. Although now that I think about it I do recall seeing zombie themed targets that focused on the head.

Just Google target sheets that use a human form. There are a lot that have a target area on the head area. Many have no theme at all

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The Kingdom of God is not a warring nation. Yes, Jesus was very much like Ghandi. He was a nonviolent resister of Rome. His followers were NOT rounded up and executed when the Romans came to capture them. They were let go. This is directly stated in scripture. The Romans would NEVER let the disciples go if Jesus and his followers were violent. We have historic records of those where were violent resisters, and what Rome did as a policy to them.

That his followers, years later got executed, it was for other reasons, not for being a follower of a violent resistor of Rome. They would have all been killed right along with Jesus.


And this Death Jesus is more appealing to you than the, "forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us" Jesus of the Gospels? You know the book of Revelation was nearly voted into the scrap heap with the other books that didn't make it into the Bible? There was a lot of heated debate, for good reason. It is a contradiction to the Jesus of the gospels. The God of Love, and the God of vengeance, are contradictions. See my topic thread here for more scholarly background on this: How to Read the Bible, and Still be a Christian


Again, if Jesus and his followers were seen as a violent resistance movement against Rome, ALL of them would have been rounded up and executed at the same time. You cannot say they "escaped". They were "let go", as the gospel authors state. Rome would never have let them go voluntarily. They were not escaped criminals. You are wrong about this.


That they were killed years later, on other charges, proves that Jesus was a nonviolent resister of Rome. If otherwise, there would be no years later, on other charges, which was the case, if you've read your Bible. They'd have all been hung on crosses with Jesus, and the religion would be no more. Same thing with John the Baptist, only he, not his followers were arrested.

You are mistaken in your assumptions of the history of Christianity, as well as its core teachings. Did you know too, BTW, that Jesus was Jewish? Not sure if you understand that, seeing that you are proud to call yourself a racist, while ironically, claiming to be a Christian, a follower of a Jewish peasant.

No, Jesus was not at all like Gandhi. The Kingdom of God is always involved with violence. (Matt. 11:12) And in the past with Israel, the Kingdom was established with Israel by force. Yes, the disciples lived because they fled and didn't fight the Romans as they would have been killed. But, that is only because Jesus was destined for the Cross. It doesn't take the sword out of their hand to defend themselves.

Oh, are you 'Christian'? Doesn't sound like it to me. Oh, I see...you're not Christian but you know best how to tell a Christian what to believe. So many of those. Let me guess...you're an 'ex-christian'. God is a God of love, and vengeance. There is no contradiction.

I didn't say the disciples were escaped criminals. They all fled however, though John later returned. That all but John would eventually be killed shows the violence of the Kingdom of God. As well as the multitudes of Christians martyred over the years. The sword was not used to overthrow the Roman empire by Christians. But that doesn't mean the Christian doesn't carry the sword for his defense. (Luke 22:38) If one breaks into a meeting with a sword to kill Christians, which is illegal by the way, the Christian can and should defend himself. Once persecution becomes politically official is another matter.

Yes, I am aware Jesus was and is a Jew. And yes, I follow Him in His rejection as peasant and criminal. I am proud of the Confederate flag and the people it represents. You can call it racist all you want, that doesn't bother me. I am not afraid of the term. As I have pointed out before, God specifically chose the Jews as His earthly people. Right? How racist of Him.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

oh, no you're right, they were absolutely loyal

While you're attempting to redefine basic history and word definitions, perhaps you'd like to try to spin the traitor's crushing loss as "winning", why not?

Go to the thread 'Nikki Haley', in this section I believe. I have addressed the very accusations you are making. Upon reading my response, if you have something you think you can add, please do there. I will respond.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

And losing. And treason.

See the 'Nikki Haley' thread. If you can add anything, which I doubt, do it there. Read first my responses.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So when Christians lost their power and influence, plan B was to win the victim olympics and self-sooth with petty, sadistic revenge fantasies?

Not sure what you mean here. Explain.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Ah yes, "one day Jesus is gunna come back and torture evryone who was ever mean to me" theology.

Yes, it is called the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ. It is not going to be centered on 'me' or any other one individual. It will be centered on Christ.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Revoltingest]

Why haven't the Mods made it public yet?

If we knew all the rules, it would be too easy to comply.
(Mods are paid by the infraction.)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

See the 'Nikki Haley' thread. If you can add anything, which I doubt, do it there. Read first my responses.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Nope. I'm not playing silly word redefinition games with you, and I'm certainly not chasing around other threads to enable you. Armed rebellion against the state is the text book definition of treason, and the Confederacy losing the Civil War is the textbook definition of "loser". Cling to a defeated symbol of traitors and losers all you like, but no amount of willfully ignoring basic word definitions or history will make it anything else.

The South committed treason, and then it lost. If you don't want to be associated with a symbol representing treasonous losers, stop doing so, but no one else is obligated to pretend facts aren't facts to cater to you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

See the 'Nikki Haley' thread. If you can add anything, which I doubt, do it there. Read first my responses.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You're absolutely free to cling to the symbol of a racist, treasonous regime (who lost) of course. I'm just kind of curious why you'd want to?

 

[Windwalker]

No, Jesus was not at all like Gandhi. The Kingdom of God is always involved with violence. (Matt. 11:12)

Quote the verse. "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it." It say it was "subjected to violence," and that "violent people have be raiding it". It does NOT say the Kingdom of God is a violent revolution. It's like saying, women have been subjected to violence and rape from the beginning. Does that mean women are rapists according to your twisting of logic here?

I don't know who teaches you Bible lessons, but clearly neither you nor they comprehend even the most simple passages, as above. Of course the way of Peace, has always been attacked by those who wish power. They fear it, and they, attack it. Those in the kingdom however, never are the violent perpetrators. This is the way it's always been. Jesus was correct. Expect violence from those who hate those who promote peace.

Yes, Ghandi too was subjected to violence in his nonviolent resistance against Britain. He was exactly like Jesus in this way. He was even killed for it, like Jesus.

And in the past with Israel, the Kingdom was established with Israel by force. Yes, the disciples lived because they fled and didn't fight the Romans as they would have been killed. But, that is only because Jesus was destined for the Cross. It doesn't take the sword out of their hand to defend themselves.

Completely lame response. Again, they did not "escape" capture. They were not known, wanted fugitives of Rome. They were let go, as there were no charges against them. That is a fact of what scripture says, and if it were a violent resistance movement, they would have been hauled in with Jesus and put to death with him, at the same time. If they had escaped, they would have been hauled in and executed on the spot once they emerged out into public.

Yet, you have them walking about freely in the open, preaching and teaching. Read your NT. Read the book of Acts. Read the Gospel of John, "Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

They were there with only orders for Jesus, and Jesus reminded them of that, so they let the disciples go. It is a historical, documented fact, that Rome dealt with nonviolent movements this way, capturing and executing only the leaders, and not the followers. This verse alone proves they were sent with orders only for Jesus, proving he was seen and being treated as a leader of a nonviolent resistance movement against Rome.

Now, you could argue, that the Romans didn't know the fact, that Jesus and the disciples were promoting violent resistance instead, but that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Again, you have no support whatsoever for your claim, and mangle selected verses, as in the example above, because you have nothing whatsoever to support your belief in a sword-wielding Jesus of Nazareth. You have to mangle scripture like you just did, in order to blind yourself so.

Oh, are you 'Christian'? Doesn't sound like it to me.

I am thinking that about you. "By their fruits you shall know them". Being proud of your open racism, bigotry, and violence, is opposite of everything Jesus teaches us.

Oh, I see...you're not Christian but you know best how to tell a Christian what to believe.

Why do you say I'm not? To be honest, folks such as yourself give Christianity the sort of name I don't wish to be associated with, but that does not mean than in essence and practice I do not follow the way that Jesus taught. That makes me a follower of Christ. Not everyone who claims they are a follower of Jesus, really are. And not everyone who doesn't like to self-identify with a religion, is not a follower of Christ.

It is what we do, that makes us that. Not what we claim as a belief, let alone when those beliefs, such as racism and violence should been seen as Christian values, when they absolutely are not. You are mistaken about pretty much everything having to do with Christianity, in fact. The wolf is violence and racism, The sheep's clothing is the name of Jesus being applied to that.

So many of those. Let me guess...you're an 'ex-christian'. God is a God of love, and vengeance. There is no contradiction.

I see myself as a follower of God, and as part of that, I am a former fundamentalist, which is a "version" of Christianity that falls on its face when it comes to understanding the Love of God. It is a human violent reaction to fear and powerlessness. I discovered I had to let that system go, in favor of a more loving path to God. I see that path in the teaching of Jesus, which you do not reflect in your mangeling of scriptures in order to support your ways of proud racism and violence.

I didn't say the disciples were escaped criminals. They all fled however, though John later returned.

Exactly, the were allowed to flee. If they had been there with order to arrest them, they would have laid chase to them and hunted them down. But they didn't, which proves beyond doubt, they were seen as a nonviolent resistance movement by the Roman authorities. This factually stands, and you can't shake that.

That all but John would eventually be killed shows the violence of the Kingdom of God.

Absolutely it does NOT show the violence of the Kingdom of God. It shows the violence of the world! It shows exactly what Jesus said, "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." That is why the Kingdom of God is "subjected to violence", as in the verse you misquoted. The world is violent against peace, because it exposes their violent ways. It shines a light of peace upon it, and that makes them guilty.

You have it absolutely upside down and backwards. Why is that? Which system are you following? The ways of a violent and repressive world, or the ways of peace which shines a light on the violence and exposes it? You have your idea of Christianity, completely upside down, like an inverted cross.

As well as the multitudes of Christians martyred over the years.

Yes of course, the world hates the light and acts violently towards it, just as that verse you bastardized to support a violent Christianity said, Christians are subjected to violence, because they stand for Peace, love, and equality, the opposite of the world's ways which are violent, repressive, bigoted, hateful, racist, and dishonest in speech.

The sword was not used to overthrow the Roman empire by Christians. But that doesn't mean the Christian doesn't carry the sword for his defense. (Luke 22:38)

That you want to argue that it's okay for Christians to own guns for self-protection is one thing. That you use a verse such as Luke 22:38 to say that is what Jesus taught Christians to do, is unsupportable. That verse is not about teaching Christians to defend themselves with weapons against attackers. That is inconsistent with the context of the passage, as well as everything else the NT teaches. That's not to say it's not a grey area for Christians to struggle with, but it is to say that verse is not about that and cannot be used that way.

If one breaks into a meeting with a sword to kill Christians, which is illegal by the way, the Christian can and should defend himself.

I don't think I'm saying that at all here. I think maybe why you so revile that comparison of Gandhi with Jesus, is that you perhaps don't understand the difference between nonviolent resistance, and pacifism.

Let me clear this up, and perhaps that may help you. I do not believe that either Ghandi or Jesus were pacifists. Pacifism lays down and lets evil overtake them because they see nonviolence as the greatest good. Pacifism does not resist being walked over and taken advantage of. That is not what Jesus taught, nor is it what Gandhi taught.

They both taught to resist, to say no to, to take a stand against injustice, violence, hatred, oppression, racism, bigotry, and so forth. BUT, rather than resisting it with violence, such as your lynchings down south, firebombings, running over people with cars you disagree with politically, hanging symbols of violence and oppression proudly declaring your hatred of others, etc, nonviolent resistance stands against all forms of violence, willing to take a stand and resist to the last such wrongs, without being violent.

That is what Gandhi did. That is what Jesus did.. They were not pacifists. They were nonviolent resisters. So was Dr. Martin Luther King, whom the world likewise hated and killed through their violent bigotry and hatred, as they likewise killed Gandhi, and as they likewise killed Jesus for the same reasons.

And you are proud of this, and not ashamed?

Once persecution becomes politically official is another matter.

Yes, I am aware Jesus was and is a Jew. And yes, I follow Him in His rejection as peasant and criminal. I am proud of the Confederate flag and the people it represents. You can call it racist all you want, that doesn't bother me. I am not afraid of the term. As I have pointed out before, God specifically chose the Jews as His earthly people. Right? How racist of Him.

Of course God is not a racist. Flying the Confederate flag however, which is a symbol of racism (ask any Black living in the South), is a contradiction to Christianity, which teaches there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither black nor white, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave, but all are one in Christ.

The Confederate flag is a symbol not of Love and Unity, as you find in Christian scripture, but of division and white supremacy. The two are incompatible to the core. You cannot proclaim a symbol of Love and Unity (Jesus Christ) and a symbol of violence and bigotry at the same time. They cancel each other out.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Quote the verse. "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it." It say it was "subjected to violence," and that "violent people have be raiding it". It does NOT say the Kingdom of God is a violent revolution. It's like saying, women have been subjected to violence and rape from the beginning. Does that mean women are rapists according to your twisting of logic here?

I don't know who teaches you Bible lessons, but clearly neither you nor they comprehend even the most simple passages, as above. Of course the way of Peace, has always been attacked by those who wish power. They fear it, and they, attack it. Those in the kingdom however, never are the violent perpetrators. This is the way it's always been. Jesus was correct. Expect violence from those who hate those who promote peace.

Yes, Ghandi too was subjected to violence in his nonviolent resistance against Britain. He was exactly like Jesus in this way. He was even killed for it, like Jesus.


Completely lame response. Again, they did not "escape" capture. They were not known, wanted fugitives of Rome. They were let go, as there were no charges against them. That is a fact of what scripture says, and if it were a violent resistance movement, they would have been hauled in with Jesus and put to death with him, at the same time. If they had escaped, they would have been hauled in and executed on the spot once they emerged out into public.

Yet, you have them walking about freely in the open, preaching and teaching. Read your NT. Read the book of Acts. Read the Gospel of John, "Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

They were there with only orders for Jesus, and Jesus reminded them of that, so they let the disciples go. It is a historical, documented fact, that Rome dealt with nonviolent movements this way, capturing and executing only the leaders, and not the followers. This verse alone proves they were sent with orders only for Jesus, proving he was seen and being treated as a leader of a nonviolent resistance movement against Rome.

Now, you could argue, that the Romans didn't know the fact, that Jesus and the disciples were promoting violent resistance instead, but that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Again, you have no support whatsoever for your claim, and mangle selected verses, as in the example above, because you have nothing whatsoever to support your belief in a sword-wielding Jesus of Nazareth. You have to mangle scripture like you just did, in order to blind yourself so.


I am thinking that about you. "By their fruits you shall know them". Being proud of your open racism, bigotry, and violence, is opposite of everything Jesus teaches us.


Why do you say I'm not? To be honest, folks such as yourself give Christianity the sort of name I don't wish to be associated with, but that does not mean than in essence and practice I do not follow the way that Jesus taught. That makes me a follower of Christ. Not everyone who claims they are a follower of Jesus, really are. And not everyone who doesn't like to self-identify with a religion, is not a follower of Christ.

It is what we do, that makes us that. Not what we claim as a belief, let alone when those beliefs, such as racism and violence should been seen as Christian values, when they absolutely are not. You are mistaken about pretty much everything having to do with Christianity, in fact. The wolf is violence and racism, The sheep's clothing is the name of Jesus being applied to that.


I see myself as a follower of God, and as part of that, I am a former fundamentalist, which is a "version" of Christianity that falls on its face when it comes to understanding the Love of God. It is a human violent reaction to fear and powerlessness. I discovered I had to let that system go, in favor of a more loving path to God. I see that path in the teaching of Jesus, which you do not reflect in your mangeling of scriptures in order to support your ways of proud racism and violence.


Exactly, the were allowed to flee. If they had been there with order to arrest them, they would have laid chase to them and hunted them down. But they didn't, which proves beyond doubt, they were seen as a nonviolent resistance movement by the Roman authorities. This factually stands, and you can't shake that.


Absolutely it does NOT show the violence of the Kingdom of God. It shows the violence of the world! It shows exactly what Jesus said, "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." That is why the Kingdom of God is "subjected to violence", as in the verse you misquoted. The world is violent against peace, because it exposes their violent ways. It shines a light of peace upon it, and that makes them guilty.

You have it absolutely upside down and backwards. Why is that? Which system are you following? The ways of a violent and repressive world, or the ways of peace which shines a light on the violence and exposes it? You have your idea of Christianity, completely upside down, like an inverted cross.


Yes of course, the world hates the light and acts violently towards it, just as that verse you bastardized to support a violent Christianity said, Christians are subjected to violence, because they stand for Peace, love, and equality, the opposite of the world's ways which are violent, repressive, bigoted, hateful, racist, and dishonest in speech.


That you want to argue that it's okay for Christians to own guns for self-protection is one thing. That you use a verse such as Luke 22:38 to say that is what Jesus taught Christians to do, is unsupportable. That verse is not about teaching Christians to defend themselves with weapons against attackers. That is inconsistent with the context of the passage, as well as everything else the NT teaches. That's not to say it's not a grey area for Christians to struggle with, but it is to say that verse is not about that and cannot be used that way.


I don't think I'm saying that at all here. I think maybe why you so revile that comparison of Gandhi with Jesus, is that you perhaps don't understand the difference between nonviolent resistance, and pacifism.

Let me clear this up, and perhaps that may help you. I do not believe that either Ghandi or Jesus were pacifists. Pacifism lays down and lets evil overtake them because they see nonviolence as the greatest good. Pacifism does not resist being walked over and taken advantage of. That is not what Jesus taught, nor is it what Gandhi taught.

They both taught to resist, to say no to, to take a stand against injustice, violence, hatred, oppression, racism, bigotry, and so forth. BUT, rather than resisting it with violence, such as your lynchings down south, firebombings, running over people with cars you disagree with politically, hanging symbols of violence and oppression proudly declaring your hatred of others, etc, nonviolent resistance stands against all forms of violence, willing to take a stand and resist to the last such wrongs, without being violent.

That is what Gandhi did. That is what Jesus did.. They were not pacifists. They were nonviolent resisters. So was Dr. Martin Luther King, whom the world likewise hated and killed through their violent bigotry and hatred, as they likewise killed Gandhi, and as they likewise killed Jesus for the same reasons.

And you are proud of this, and not ashamed?


Of course God is not a racist. Flying the Confederate flag however, which is a symbol of racism (ask any Black living in the South), is a contradiction to Christianity, which teaches there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither black nor white, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave, but all are one in Christ.

The Confederate flag is a symbol not of Love and Unity, as you find in Christian scripture, but of division and white supremacy. The two are incompatible to the core. You cannot proclaim a symbol of Love and Unity (Jesus Christ) and a symbol of violence and bigotry at the same time. They cancel each other out.

Fun that the "Christian" making all the claims about blood soaked Christian exceptionalism was recently bemoaning the violence he percieves in Islam in another thread. I'm not sure if it's projection, terminal irony impairment, or straight up trolling, but whatever it is, it's a worry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am proud of the Confederate flag and the people it represents.

Represents to you. That flag represents something different to me, which is nothing to be proud of. This is how the American South is seen by outsiders:

I saw cotton and I saw black
Tall white mansions and little shacks
Southern man, when will you pay them back?
I heard screaming and
bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

And that is what that flag symbolizes to them.

It's a tradition of slavery, bigotry, lynchings, fire hoses, and segregation. You might as well be flying a swastika, which is an innocent symbol if you're Chinese (I brought back some incense from China that has swastikas on the box), but means something else to Westerners.

Never mind that when I watch Live PD and similar documentary-style police shows, we frequently see confederate flags on the walls, belt buckles, and caps of people that are invariably shirtless, inarticulate to beat the band, high on meth, publicly intoxicated, abusive to their women, profane with the police, and are unable or unwilling to comply with simple requests such as get on the ground, or quit resisting. The Confederate flag also stands for that aspect of Southern culture.

And I saw it first-hand, having lived for eleven years in the reddest part of a red state, Missouri, surrounded by eight other red states, bless their hearts. They never accepted me, and I never felt close to them.

I like this synopsis of Southern culture, which can be found on the Internet:

I've never been fishing with my hands or a spear, nor have I ever hunted. I don't watch fishing on television, I never bowl, have never attended a NASCAR event or a monster truck rally, and have never shot a bottle, can, or stop sign.

I don't smoke or chew tobacco. Nor do I drink beer (or crush the cans with my forehead), nor do I eat moon pies, grits, funnel cakes, deep fried cubes of butter, or squirrel, nor drink moonshine or Mountain Dew.

I've never had a mullet, nor have I owned overalls, cowboy boots, or a billed cap, and I have no belt buckles in the shape of Texas with writing on them.

I have never owned a Confederate flag, nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I never say, “aint,” ”y’all,” ”fixin’,” or “reckon.”

I’ve never seen a Toby Keith or Martina McBride concert, never lived in a trailer, and have never had a sofa on my front porch or a car with no wheels on my lawn.

My means of transportation has never been a muscle car or a pickup, and I've never been to Sturgis or Dollywood.

I have never been in a fight, never been stopped for drunk driving, never cooked or used meth, never been arrested, nor spent a night in jail.​

Anyway, like it or not, all of that is also implied by the Confederate flag. Southern culture has a bad reputation, and that flag is its standard.

Anyway, hopefully you are aware that the message that you send with that flag isn't the one you intend except to other people like you. It reminds me of the Japanese character tattoos that the owner thinks sends one message, but to somebody able to read Japanese, says something very different - pretty funny :

Hilarious Translations of Asian Character Tattoos. These People Got Inked and Then … Shocked!

I expect your reaction to be the same as Lynyrd Skynyrd's dismissive attitude to Neil Young's lyrics above:

Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well I heard old Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow

Go to the thread 'Nikki Haley', in this section I believe. I have addressed the very accusations you are making.

Really? You're asking others to find a thread that you couldn't bother to link to, review the entire thread searching for your posts, just to discover your opinion on a topic? That's unrealistic.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Nope. I'm not playing silly word redefinition games with you, and I'm certainly not chasing around other threads to enable you. Armed rebellion against the state is the text book definition of treason, and the Confederacy losing the Civil War is the textbook definition of "loser". Cling to a defeated symbol of traitors and losers all you like, but no amount of willfully ignoring basic word definitions or history will make it anything else.

The South committed treason, and then it lost. If you don't want to be associated with a symbol representing treasonous losers, stop doing so, but no one else is obligated to pretend facts aren't facts to cater to you.

Take it to the 'Nikki Haley' forum. Educate yourself...if that is possible. I will respond.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You're absolutely free to cling to the symbol of a racist, treasonous regime (who lost) of course. I'm just kind of curious why you'd want to?

See the 'Nikki Haley' forum and your questions would be answered.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Quote the verse. "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it." It say it was "subjected to violence," and that "violent people have be raiding it". It does NOT say the Kingdom of God is a violent revolution. It's like saying, women have been subjected to violence and rape from the beginning. Does that mean women are rapists according to your twisting of logic here?

I don't know who teaches you Bible lessons, but clearly neither you nor they comprehend even the most simple passages, as above. Of course the way of Peace, has always been attacked by those who wish power. They fear it, and they, attack it. Those in the kingdom however, never are the violent perpetrators. This is the way it's always been. Jesus was correct. Expect violence from those who hate those who promote peace.

Yes, Ghandi too was subjected to violence in his nonviolent resistance against Britain. He was exactly like Jesus in this way. He was even killed for it, like Jesus.


Completely lame response. Again, they did not "escape" capture. They were not known, wanted fugitives of Rome. They were let go, as there were no charges against them. That is a fact of what scripture says, and if it were a violent resistance movement, they would have been hauled in with Jesus and put to death with him, at the same time. If they had escaped, they would have been hauled in and executed on the spot once they emerged out into public.

Yet, you have them walking about freely in the open, preaching and teaching. Read your NT. Read the book of Acts. Read the Gospel of John, "Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

They were there with only orders for Jesus, and Jesus reminded them of that, so they let the disciples go. It is a historical, documented fact, that Rome dealt with nonviolent movements this way, capturing and executing only the leaders, and not the followers. This verse alone proves they were sent with orders only for Jesus, proving he was seen and being treated as a leader of a nonviolent resistance movement against Rome.

Now, you could argue, that the Romans didn't know the fact, that Jesus and the disciples were promoting violent resistance instead, but that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Again, you have no support whatsoever for your claim, and mangle selected verses, as in the example above, because you have nothing whatsoever to support your belief in a sword-wielding Jesus of Nazareth. You have to mangle scripture like you just did, in order to blind yourself so.


I am thinking that about you. "By their fruits you shall know them". Being proud of your open racism, bigotry, and violence, is opposite of everything Jesus teaches us.


Why do you say I'm not? To be honest, folks such as yourself give Christianity the sort of name I don't wish to be associated with, but that does not mean than in essence and practice I do not follow the way that Jesus taught. That makes me a follower of Christ. Not everyone who claims they are a follower of Jesus, really are. And not everyone who doesn't like to self-identify with a religion, is not a follower of Christ.

It is what we do, that makes us that. Not what we claim as a belief, let alone when those beliefs, such as racism and violence should been seen as Christian values, when they absolutely are not. You are mistaken about pretty much everything having to do with Christianity, in fact. The wolf is violence and racism, The sheep's clothing is the name of Jesus being applied to that.


I see myself as a follower of God, and as part of that, I am a former fundamentalist, which is a "version" of Christianity that falls on its face when it comes to understanding the Love of God. It is a human violent reaction to fear and powerlessness. I discovered I had to let that system go, in favor of a more loving path to God. I see that path in the teaching of Jesus, which you do not reflect in your mangeling of scriptures in order to support your ways of proud racism and violence.


Exactly, the were allowed to flee. If they had been there with order to arrest them, they would have laid chase to them and hunted them down. But they didn't, which proves beyond doubt, they were seen as a nonviolent resistance movement by the Roman authorities. This factually stands, and you can't shake that.


Absolutely it does NOT show the violence of the Kingdom of God. It shows the violence of the world! It shows exactly what Jesus said, "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." That is why the Kingdom of God is "subjected to violence", as in the verse you misquoted. The world is violent against peace, because it exposes their violent ways. It shines a light of peace upon it, and that makes them guilty.

You have it absolutely upside down and backwards. Why is that? Which system are you following? The ways of a violent and repressive world, or the ways of peace which shines a light on the violence and exposes it? You have your idea of Christianity, completely upside down, like an inverted cross.


Yes of course, the world hates the light and acts violently towards it, just as that verse you bastardized to support a violent Christianity said, Christians are subjected to violence, because they stand for Peace, love, and equality, the opposite of the world's ways which are violent, repressive, bigoted, hateful, racist, and dishonest in speech.


That you want to argue that it's okay for Christians to own guns for self-protection is one thing. That you use a verse such as Luke 22:38 to say that is what Jesus taught Christians to do, is unsupportable. That verse is not about teaching Christians to defend themselves with weapons against attackers. That is inconsistent with the context of the passage, as well as everything else the NT teaches. That's not to say it's not a grey area for Christians to struggle with, but it is to say that verse is not about that and cannot be used that way.


I don't think I'm saying that at all here. I think maybe why you so revile that comparison of Gandhi with Jesus, is that you perhaps don't understand the difference between nonviolent resistance, and pacifism.

Let me clear this up, and perhaps that may help you. I do not believe that either Ghandi or Jesus were pacifists. Pacifism lays down and lets evil overtake them because they see nonviolence as the greatest good. Pacifism does not resist being walked over and taken advantage of. That is not what Jesus taught, nor is it what Gandhi taught.

They both taught to resist, to say no to, to take a stand against injustice, violence, hatred, oppression, racism, bigotry, and so forth. BUT, rather than resisting it with violence, such as your lynchings down south, firebombings, running over people with cars you disagree with politically, hanging symbols of violence and oppression proudly declaring your hatred of others, etc, nonviolent resistance stands against all forms of violence, willing to take a stand and resist to the last such wrongs, without being violent.

That is what Gandhi did. That is what Jesus did.. They were not pacifists. They were nonviolent resisters. So was Dr. Martin Luther King, whom the world likewise hated and killed through their violent bigotry and hatred, as they likewise killed Gandhi, and as they likewise killed Jesus for the same reasons.

And you are proud of this, and not ashamed?


Of course God is not a racist. Flying the Confederate flag however, which is a symbol of racism (ask any Black living in the South), is a contradiction to Christianity, which teaches there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither black nor white, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave, but all are one in Christ.

The Confederate flag is a symbol not of Love and Unity, as you find in Christian scripture, but of division and white supremacy. The two are incompatible to the core. You cannot proclaim a symbol of Love and Unity (Jesus Christ) and a symbol of violence and bigotry at the same time. They cancel each other out.

(Matt. 11:12) "...and the violent take it by force." Concerning Gandhi, he was no Jesus. And Jesus was no Gandhi. No comparison.

Again, in the past, the Kingdom was established by violence with Israel. Do you disagree? How many Canaanites did Israel kill to take over the promised land? The Kingdom of God always comes with violence. As it will again in the future.

Concerning the disciples walking about 'freely' preaching in the book of (Acts): See, (Acts 4:1-7), (Acts 4:18), (Acts 4:21), (Acts 5:40-41), (Acts 7:54-59), (Acts 8:1-3), (Acts 11:19), (Acts 12:1-3). etc. etc. etc. Sounds like you need to read the Bible. Not that it would help...you understand.

Concerning (Luke 22:38) I didn't bastardize it. I didn't write it. A sword is for one thing...defense. And (Luke 22:38) is all about that. You don't like it...too bad. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. I know, I know, you're now going to tell me you are some ex-sniper of the Green Beret, but out of the goodness of your heart you had to give away all your guns. Go ahead, tell me a story.


Concerning your comments about 'your' christianity: I say you are not, for the reason that you just said so. For another, you don't carry the label. For another, you are ignorant of the Bible. Now you tell me you used to be...just as I suspected. Oh, but you are so good, that Jesus would want you...right. You and Jesus. Jesus tells all that it is about faith in Him. But no, you will do good. Jesus will see you and say, what a man. How stupid. You are totally mixed up about Christ.

Concerning the disciples fleeing: I already said the sword is given the disciples for self defence. The aggressive action of the disciples would always be through the Gospel, which you are ignorant of. And I haven't misquoted any verses. Actually, the world is not violent against peace. The world is seeking 'peace'. But, they will never obtain it. The anti-christ will come crying 'peace, peace'. And will be accepted by people like you who make peace and love the all encompassing factors. Jesus is all about peace. But only when He is acknowledged as Lord and Saviour. The world seeks peace. Jesus says there will be no peace till He comes back and sets things right. And, the blood will flow.

No, your comparison of Jesus with Gandhi and MLK is sickening. First of all, you are mistaken about what Jesus was saying and teaching. If you want to follow Gandhi or MLK, go ahead. But don't think you are impressing Jesus Christ. You deny Jesus Christ, but you want to impress Him? He is not impressed.

How is God not racist when He chose the Jews above all others? (Deut. 14:2) The verse you allude to about all being one in Christ is only about those who are the Church. It doesn't cover all others.

The Confederate flag represents the Southern white people. It is not against Christ or Christianity. There were never a more Bible believing Christian people then the people in the South. We are not called the Bible Belt for nothing.

Again, like I tell all others, if you want to argue about the Confederate flag, take it to the 'Nikki Haley' forum where it is the subject. I will gladly respond. Be sure to read my previous posts there first.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Represents to you. That flag represents something different to me, which is nothing to be proud of. This is how the American South is seen by outsiders:

I saw cotton and I saw black
Tall white mansions and little shacks
Southern man, when will you pay them back?
I heard screaming and
bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

And that is what that flag symbolizes to them.

It's a tradition of slavery, bigotry, lynchings, fire hoses, and segregation. You might as well be flying a swastika, which is an innocent symbol if you're Chinese (I brought back some incense from China that has swastikas on the box), but means something else to Westerners.

Never mind that when I watch Live PD and similar documentary-style police shows, we frequently see confederate flags on the walls, belt buckles, and caps of people that are invariably shirtless, inarticulate to beat the band, high on meth, publicly intoxicated, abusive to their women, profane with the police, and are unable or unwilling to comply with simple requests such as get on the ground, or quit resisting. The Confederate flag also stands for that aspect of Southern culture.

And I saw it first-hand, having lived for eleven years in the reddest part of a red state, Missouri, surrounded by eight other red states, bless their hearts. They never accepted me, and I never felt close to them.

I like this synopsis of Southern culture, which can be found on the Internet:

I've never been fishing with my hands or a spear, nor have I ever hunted. I don't watch fishing on television, I never bowl, have never attended a NASCAR event or a monster truck rally, and have never shot a bottle, can, or stop sign.

I don't smoke or chew tobacco. Nor do I drink beer (or crush the cans with my forehead), nor do I eat moon pies, grits, funnel cakes, deep fried cubes of butter, or squirrel, nor drink moonshine or Mountain Dew.

I've never had a mullet, nor have I owned overalls, cowboy boots, or a billed cap, and I have no belt buckles in the shape of Texas with writing on them.

I have never owned a Confederate flag, nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I never say, “aint,” ”y’all,” ”fixin’,” or “reckon.”

I’ve never seen a Toby Keith or Martina McBride concert, never lived in a trailer, and have never had a sofa on my front porch or a car with no wheels on my lawn.

My means of transportation has never been a muscle car or a pickup, and I've never been to Sturgis or Dollywood.

I have never been in a fight, never been stopped for drunk driving, never cooked or used meth, never been arrested, nor spent a night in jail.​

Anyway, like it or not, all of that is also implied by the Confederate flag. Southern culture has a bad reputation, and that flag is its standard.

Anyway, hopefully you are aware that the message that you send with that flag isn't the one you intend except to other people like you. It reminds me of the Japanese character tattoos that the owner thinks sends one message, but to somebody able to read Japanese, says something very different - pretty funny :

Hilarious Translations of Asian Character Tattoos. These People Got Inked and Then … Shocked!

I expect your reaction to be the same as Lynyrd Skynyrd's dismissive attitude to Neil Young's lyrics above:

Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well I heard old Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow



Really? You're asking others to find a thread that you couldn't bother to link to, review the entire thread searching for your posts, just to discover your opinion on a topic? That's unrealistic.

Yes, I am asking others to go the the thread where what you are concerned with is the topic. I have said I will respond. So, if you're intrested, go to that thread, read what I have said and make your response. I will reply.

That is not unrealistic. The 'Nikki Haley' thread in this same political section. Found on page 2, I believe.

You bet, love that Lynyrd Skynyrd's song.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

See the 'Nikki Haley' forum and your questions would be answered.

Good-Ole-Rebel

That is not how it is done. Try again.

Don't you at least know how to link?

 

[Windwalker]

(Matt. 11:12) "...and the violent take it by force."

Right! Meaning, thieves and robbers who enter in another way, as Jesus also referred to. These are the impersonators of spiritual teachers, who take the position by violence and force, rather than it being because they are actually spiritual. It's the frauds you see in Christian leadership, who while worshiping Jesus with their mouths, are racists in the next breath with the same mouth.

Concerning Gandhi, he was no Jesus. And Jesus was no Gandhi. No comparison.

Of course there are comparisons between them, but that is not to say they were essentially the same people. Obviously, Ghandi was not the founder of a religion, but both Jesus and Gandhi were nonviolent resisters of oppressive government rulers. That is very much the same. I'm not making any comparisons beyond that here.

I sense a disdain for Ghandi from you, for some reason. Care to share what that is, and why you don't see him as a fair comparison to other nonviolent resisters of oppression, like Dr. King, or Jesus? Are you still arguing how that the Jesus movement was a violence-based resistance movement, despite the facts I have shown you?

Again, in the past, the Kingdom was established by violence with Israel. Do you disagree?

I very much disagree. The Kingdom of God that Jesus taught, "is not of this world". You are talking about the nation of Israel. I'm not. Neither was Jesus.

How many Canaanites did Israel kill to take over the promised land? The Kingdom of God always comes with violence. As it will again in the future.

It frightens me that those such as yourself, can hear Jesus being an advocate of violence. Does the Kingdom of God always come with violence? Let's see what Jesus taught us about that, okay?

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

~Luke 17:20,21​

As you can clearly see, it's not something observable in this world, such as a structural governmental body with tanks, swords, bloodshed, or military might. I don't know about you, but if some foreign power came blasting into my neighborhood with flags flying, missiles screaming through the air and hitting hospitals and nursing homes, with crazed lunatic "believers" shouting religious slogans while slicing their way through the streets decapitating infidels or "sinners", that is extremely observable! Yet Jesus just told you, it is "not something than can be observed". So, you're idea does not fit Jesus idea at all here. You miss it entirely.

And.... let's add this, he said, at that time, the kingdom of God is right there, right now, in their, midst. I'll add, it's also here now in yours. But with all this violence you place your trust in, and that is what you are doing you should recognize here, you do not see what is already here, now. Your fears and its resulting hatred of others, blocks the light of love. And the light of love, is the Kingdom of God. I can give you countless verses that say this.

Concerning the disciples walking about 'freely' preaching in the book of (Acts): See, (Acts 4:1-7), (Acts 4:18), (Acts 4:21), (Acts 5:40-41), (Acts 7:54-59), (Acts 8:1-3), (Acts 11:19), (Acts 12:1-3). etc. etc. etc. Sounds like you need to read the Bible. Not that it would help...you understand.

I read the Bible quite a lot while I was getting my degree in theology, and have been studying it quite extensively since, reading many different scholarly works. Regarding the verses above, with the exception of Acts 12, all these had to do with Jewish authority, not Roman. And as I said before, these were separate incidents, and had nothing to do with the Romans issuing an arrest warrant against Jesus.

At the time of Jesus's arrest, the Romans saw the Jesus movement as a nonviolent resistance group, otherwise they would have rounded them all up at that time and crucified them right along with Jesus, exactly as they did as a standard practice with all violent resistance group of that time. This is recorded historical policy of the Roman Empire, born out by examples again and again.

Since you obviously don't have a lot of knowledge about this stuff, you may not be aware that the Jews did not have the authority to put prisoners to death. Jesus was executed by Rome for sedition. It's how Rome saw him. They let the disciples go, regardless of how the Sandherine liked that or not. So everything you quoted, proves that they were out free, because Rome did not see the Jesus movements as a violent resistance movement.

You are flatly wrong on this, and have no way to make a case otherwise. John the Baptist was a nonviolent resister of Rome, and so was Jesus. None of the followers were rounded up and executed, when they arrested the leader. That is the formula the Rome used again and again with nonviolent resistance movements. They would have had arrest warrants issued for them, right along with Jesus. But they did not. And that tells us that the movement was nonviolent. There is no getting around this.

Concerning (Luke 22:38) I didn't bastardize it. I didn't write it.

But you tried to say it's promoting self-defense, "Go, buy a weapon to protect yourself," instructs Jesus. No way. The context simply does not support that interpretation. You are yanking a verse out and using it to support something that Jesus never taught, nor in the context, would be talking about. That is what is bastardizing scripture. The scripture is just fine, in context.

A sword is for one thing...defense.

You know that word in the original language can also be translated knife, or blade? Not sure about you, but I use knives to cut food, rope, pry things loose, wittle things, etc. A knife is a tool for may practicals things. So, sure, standard tools for surviving on the road. Only extreme wishful thinking and some really horrid reading of scripture would imagine that means Jesus finds your assault rifle anything he would condone as something his disciples should own. "All who live by the sword, die by the sword".

I know, I know, you're now going to tell me you are some ex-sniper of the Green Beret, but out of the goodness of your heart you had to give away all your guns. Go ahead, tell me a story.

I'm not an ex-sniper, and my feelings about guns has nothing to do with you raping scripture the way you do as an excuse for your obsession about them, trying to make it something Jesus taught. It's about that, not guns.

Concerning your comments about 'your' christianity: I say you are not, for the reason that you just said so. For another, you don't carry the label.

You say I am not a Christian because I don't wish apply labels to myself? In my mind, a Christian is something you are, not what you profess to believe. God judges the heart, not the name you adopt to apply to yourself, but do not follow the teachings, using the name of good to hide evil behind. "By their fruit you shall know them", taught Jesus. What you call yourself, is nothing. Bigotry, violence, and racism, are not fruits of the spirit. If you've read the Bible, I would not need to tell you this.

For another, you are ignorant of the Bible.

Most clearly, I am not. I'm quited educated about. And of course, you already sensed this and choose to imagine I'm not because it would make this simple for you. No, I have a great deal of knowledge about it, and that knowledge helps inform my faith.

Now you tell me you used to be...just as I suspected.

I am a former fundamentalist. That does not mean I throw out the Baby of the Christian faith, with the bathwater of fear-based ignorance in the name of God. Quite the opposite. I strive to save it from all that.

 

[Windwalker]

continued.....

Oh, but you are so good, that Jesus would want you...right. You and Jesus. Jesus tells all that it is about faith in Him. But no, you will do good. Jesus will see you and say, what a man. How stupid. You are totally mixed up about Christ.

Not sure what all that was about, but you sound rattled here. That's good. You should be. I know what I'm talking about, and you do not.

Concerning the disciples fleeing: I already said the sword is given the disciples for self defence.

Or, for cutting food, since the word could be translated knife.

The aggressive action of the disciples would always be through the Gospel, which you are ignorant of.

Aggressive
, or assertive? Aggression, as in violent, showing swords and threatening to kill and overthrow Rome? Not there in scripture that I've seen. Have you seen that there, other than when Peter attacked the priest's servant, to which Jesus rebuked him? Jesus rebuked Peter's violence. Why would he, if you are right about this against everything else that scripture shows about Jesus?

And I haven't misquoted any verses. Actually, the world is not violent against peace. The world is seeking 'peace'. But, they will never obtain it.

You don't seem to understand. The world system is about peace, but it is through force and violence. The Kingdom of God system, on the other hand is also about peace, but it it through invitation, not force, love, not violence; hope, not threats; and so force. Both are for peace, but one is through violence, and the other through love. These are opposites to each other. "Love works no ill. Love is the fulfillment of the law", Romans 13:10 . Violence, is the working of ill towards others. It is opposite of love.

No, your comparison of Jesus with Gandhi and MLK is sickening.

It sounds to me like your bigotry against other races is showing. As I said above, I'm not saying Jesus and Ghandi and MLK are comparable beyond all of them taking the approach of nonviolent resistance against bigotry and oppression (something you champion, apparently). There's is nothing more sickening about that, then comparing they were all human males. Unless calling them human sickens you?

First of all, you are mistaken about what Jesus was saying and teaching. If you want to follow Gandhi or MLK, go ahead. But don't think you are impressing Jesus Christ. You deny Jesus Christ, but you want to impress Him? He is not impressed.

This is interesting to me how twice now, you have spun this as me "trying to impress Jesus". Of course, no such thing is any part of anything I think or imagine to be possible. It violates every single spiritual principle I can imagine. But that you are imaging me that way, in psychological terms, is a clear projection of what you subconsciously see yourself doing, on some level, which gives you discomfort about yourself. In others words, you have exposed your shadow self to us. Somewhere, you think you can "earn" respect of God by being some "true soldier", or some other such missguided, immature ideas.

How is God not racist when He chose the Jews above all others? (Deut. 14:2) The verse you allude to about all being one in Christ is only about those who are the Church. It doesn't cover all others.

So you are telling all of us, that you believe that God is a racist like you? That God fears others of different ethnicities, other than the Jewish race which he apparently adopted as his own? The stories of God choosing the Hebrews, has to do with finding those who had a vision of a moral world, one of distributed justice where the poor and oppressed would be treated with love and respect, in contrast with the world systems which seek to oppress and subjected others. The intent was for them to be an example to others about the ways of God, which are opposite to the world systems of violence, oppression, subjectiation, haves and have-nots, bigotry, racism, and a lack of compassion for our fellow man. It's not about Jews being the "Master Race", or some other such Neo-Nazi idiocy.

The Confederate flag represents the Southern white people. It is not against Christ or Christianity. There were never a more Bible believing Christian people then the people in the South. We are not called the Bible Belt for nothing.

If you believe your fellow humans are less than you because of their ethnicity, then you are not following Christ. Calling oneself Christian, means nothing when their words, and actions, and fruits they bear do not reflect the justice of God in the world, as envisioned by Jesus and the early Christian church. Jesus himself notes that not everyone that claims his name are actually following him. Only those who show the same compassion and sense of equality of all that Jesus did, can.

The confederate flag represents rebellion against the North which wanted to abolish slavery. Racism is at the center of the war, and what the flag represents. If you don't believe me, go ask your black neighbors how they feel about it? Do you think they respect your claiming to be a Christian, while you fly that? How are you showing them the spirit of justice and equality in God flying that in front of them in all that it represents to them? Go ahead, walk over there and ask them sincerely. Record their response for us. Or hopefully, your response when the truth hits you.

 

[Stevicus]

Take it to the 'Nikki Haley' forum. Educate yourself...if that is possible. I will respond.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Where is the Nikki Haley forum? Do you have a link?