McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I believe this is the thread he is talking about:
fair warning though....
Grab your hip waders.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Texas Welcome...come on in.
- Thread starter Good-Ole-Rebel
- Start date
fair warning though....
Grab your hip waders.
Okay, now I think I remember. There was another thread which was similar which I was thinking of, but the discussion started to go in circles. I seem to remember we discussed Fort Sumter at length.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I'm pretty well educated, thanks, for example I know what "treason" and "loser" mean. Like I said, I'm not playing silly word redefinition games, nor chasing around other threads to enable you. Treason and loser are both clearly defined, well understood terms, and the Confederacy exemplifies both.
Treason - Wikipedia
oser
/ˈluːzə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
- a person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest.
"he was the loser in last year's race for governor"
Similar:
defeated person
also-ran
the defeated
the vanquished
runner-up
Opposite:
winner
- a person who accepts defeat with good or bad grace.
"they should concede that we won and be good losers"
- a person who accepts defeat with good or bad grace.
Last edited:
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Or... we could just not enable nor engage with the silly word redefinition games at all.
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
If he chooses to engage I would strongly suggest getting a boat....
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
The Kingdom of God always comes with violence. The Kingdom of God was present when Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees because Jesus the King was present . That Kingdom was always the one promised to Israel in the Old Testament. You fail to see the difference between the Church and the Kingdom. The Church is not the Kingdom. God set up the Kingdom on Earth with the nation of Israel. Violence was indeed needed to do so. When the King returns, violence will again take place. Violence surrounded Jesus Christ as many wanted Him dead. The same is true, as I corrected you in the book of (Acts) concerning the Christians. They were not walking about freely preaching. The threat of death was always there. Violence.
Again, Jesus and Gandhi are not comparable. It is the comparison that I have a disdain for. And, Jesus was not resisting any government through non-violence. He was not resisting any government at all.
I have said repeatedly that the sword was not for the individual believer to further the Kingdom. That is done through the Gospel. The sword Jesus spoke of in (Luke 22:38) was for the individuals defense. During the time the Kingdom was being offered to Israel, by the King, Jesus Christ, there was no need for them to have a sword. He was present with them. But there was no need for them to have a lot of things, that later after the rejection, they were told to get. Compare (Matt. 10:5-13) with (Luke 22:35-38). Note in (Luke 22:36) the words "But now". Why now? Because Jesus wasn't going to be there as He was going to the Cross. So, now be wise, get you a sword.
I say you're not a Christian because you say you are not a Christian. I haven't heard you say you are Christian. You don't claim to be a Christian. You can clear it up real easy by saying yes I am a Christian, born-again, a follower of Jesus Christ.
All I have heard from you up to this point is that you believe you represent what a Christian should be. That is not the same.
Knowledge doesn't make one a Christian. Yes, you keep telling me how smart you are, yet I am still waiting to see it. You don't need to worry about saving Christianity. Christ will see to that. You know, the One you deny.
Good-Ole Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
continued.....
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.
Or, for cutting food, since the word could be translated knife.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Concerning Peter's attack on those who came to arrest Christ, I have already told you. Jesus was on the way to the Cross. Nothing would stop that.
You contradict yourself. You say the world is against peace and now you say the world is for peace. Nice correction. Did you take notes? Within the Church there is 'love'. But we are not talking about the Church, we are talking about the Kingdom. The world can seek peace, but it is not seeking the Kingdom. The world can do good things, but that is not the Kingdom. The world opposes the Kingdom with violence.
The intent was that God chose the Jews above all others. Just like it says. (Deut. 14:2) "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." And concerning the woman of Canaan, Jesus said, (Matt. 15:26) "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." Sounds pretty racist to me.
If you want to discuss the Confederate Flag go to the 'Nikki Haley' thread. It is located in the North American Politics section found on page 2. Or just type in 'Nikki Haley' in the search column upper right hand corner. I will gladly respond there. Be sure to read all that I have said before as it will answer most of your questions. You no doubt won't like it, but that is neither here or there.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
It is in the North American Politics section also. Page 2. Just type in 'Nikki Haley' in the search column.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you so often want others to do your homework?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
How could you get the history of Yeshua BarYosef so wrong?
You should look more closely into it all.
And So-called Christians who cherry pick the from the Bible to support their ideas about killing, executions, racism etc...... I call it madness, but that's just how I feel about it.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
There are hundreds and hundreds of different Christian Creeds, but what you have described is just crazy stuff, honestly.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
I've already done the work. If you want to read it, read it. If you don't, don't.
Good-Ole-Rebel
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
And
You seem to have focused upon bits to produce junk
But I'll tell you what, Christianity is reported to be reducing by a noticeable % each year, and I'll bet that this is mostly because of the kinds of extremist stuff that gets spouted and acted upon.
So keep on keeping on with it, is what I say.
I've read it.
You seem to have focused upon bits to produce junk
But I'll tell you what, Christianity is reported to be reducing by a noticeable % each year, and I'll bet that this is mostly because of the kinds of extremist stuff that gets spouted and acted upon.
So keep on keeping on with it, is what I say.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You almost certainly have not. When you will not do the least of your homework that makes your most recent claim look like a lie.
I hear you repeating this without any support. In fact, if it is true as you say the Kingdom of God "always comes with violence", and that yes indeed the Kingdom of God was present when Jesus was talking to the religious priests of his day, then where was the violence upon his coming?
Was it when he was born in the manger? Was it the labor pains of Mary pushing him out of her womb that you call "violence". Was it the violence of his palm-wielding admirers as he rode into Jerusalem riding on a donkey of peace, instead of a horse of war? Was that what you saw as a violent entry, all those big waving leaves, threatening the Romans with being swatted to death by the crowd's palm fronds?
Was it his healing of the blind, violently giving them their sight? Was it the violence of forgiving others their sins? Was it his violent message on the mount to others, that the "meek shall inherit the earth"? Is being meek and humble the same thing as being violent in your thoughts? Do you hear that as Jesus's call to arms for the poor and oppressed?
Can you please point to this violent entry that accompanied Jesus's proclamation of the Kingdom of God, because I honestly can't find it anywhere. As they like to say, "Chapter and verse, please".
Which then makes the case that it had not yet come, right? There is a difference between the nation of Israel, and the Kingdom of God that Jesus pointed to. That had not come yet in anyone's minds. They were all still looking for it to come yet.
So you cannot say that it "always comes with violence", because it had not come once in history yet, and when Jesus was there saying it was there, it was not brought about with violence, unless you consider waving palm fronds a gesture of violence?
Well, mostly clearly God did not set up the Kingdom of God on earth with Israel, because everyone living when Jesus lived, were still looking for it to come yet. Nobody believed it was already there. Most of them, like you, were looking for the violent overthrow of Rome, but they got Jesus instead who came with no armies.
Yet, here you are somehow imagining somewhere back then, it had to have been violent with Jesus, because you've told yourself the Kingdom always comes with violence, even though no one had ever seen it come yet. Circular logic is not an argument.
Again? When was the first time? The great palm frond uprising against Rome when Jesus rode in on a nonviolent, donkey of peace? Was it that violence you're thinking of?
I have been studying the martial application of using tree leaves as a self-defense weapon, throwing them violently at an attacker to distract them while I run away. So, it's possible they were being rather aggressive with them back then. Why not? Sure.
BTW, this nonsense of your notion that Jesus told them to buy swords as a self defense weapon, do you not realize how ineffective a tool like that is in self-defense? You'd have to be specially trained, like a Roman soldier in its use, to begin to hope to have a chance of defending yourself in actual battle with one, let alone, pull that baby out and get into a good fighting stance when an attacker comes rushing in at you.
Are you going to add to scripture that Jesus also told them to get some weapons training? You'd have to if you think he meant by a self-defense weapon. They are worthless, without specialized training. If you have some untrained person pulling out a sword against an experience fighter, you're pretty much dead on the spot. Even gun owners know this about guns, yet you imagine swords are an immediately effective weapon of battle for novices? I am smiling.
Nobody is denying that at all. If you mean others become violent towards the truth of God, I agree with that. That's quite obvious from scripture and Jesus' teachings. But thats others actions towards the Kingdom of God, not the actions of the Kingdom of God. That is never the perpetrator of violence.
So all your verses you support, are supporting what I said, and not bolstering your case whatsoever. Show me where Jesus told people to use force and violence to usher in God's kingdom? You cannot.
Against themselves, not them against others. They were the victims of violence, not the perpetrators of it, as you want us to believe. You are flatly wrong again.
But again, threats against Christians, is not the same as Christians threatening others with violence. Christians are not supposed to be violent. Jesus taught all of us this. If you mean the Kingdom of God is met by the violence of others, than you and I have no more disagreement. I agree with that.
But that is not what you are saying. You are saying the Kingdom of God brings violence to others, making those others the victims of Christian violence. That is absolutely upside down and backwards from the entire Christian Gospel of Peace.
Both Jesus and yourself were males who ate food, slept, and had dreams, had feet and knees, and used language to talk. Do you find that comparison offensive? Do you think Jesus was not human? There is nothing more offense about making that comparison, than there is in comparing Jesus with any other human who taught others, who loved others, and even who gave their own lives for the sake of others.
There is nothing outrageous in these comparisons. Nothing any person should be so upset by. I think it goes deeper than that for you, probably centered on your racism, which I'd recommend you seek some therapeutic help for. Maybe go talk to some Christian ministers who understand what the NT teaches about racism, and why it is so damning to those who engage in it?
What? Why did Rome crucify him then? Why did they behead John the Baptist? Because you think they did the bidding of the Jews, because the Jews had theological issues with him? They seemed to have no problem nailing thousands of the Jews to the walls of Jerusalem when there were violent uprisings against Rome, without the Jews inviting them to kill other Jews for them.
Did that come with specialized weapons training courses in order for them to know how to use it in battle? If not, they wasted their money, and put their lives at greater risk, as well as the lives they might have hoped to defend with them. Bad advice there, Jesus.
I want to expand on this further. Are you saying you believe the "sword" that Jesus told them to buy was something like the Roman gladius? Those have one purpose only. To kill another human. They were not like carrying a knife or an axe, which were common tools (I believe this is what Jesus was referring to). If a Roman soldier saw someone with a gladius strapped to their side, that would be viewed like you walking into a mall with an AK-47 slung over your back! They would have subdued that person, just like the swat team would be brought into the mall for the dude who walked in with an assault rifle would be.
And it was common practice as well back then that in common public places, even knives and axes would need to be surrendered before entry. So, no, Jesus did to tell them to arm themselves with attack weapons to protect themselves.
Then why do you have Jesus telling them to buy swords for self defense? Ooops. You have just nullify your argument that Jesus was telling them to defend themselves with weapons of violence! Why would they need to, since he was there, as you say?
At this point, this is just silly. You have no arguments, and the ones you make are ill-founded, ill-reasoned, and inconsistent. They are excuses and rationalizations, not arguments from scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said the world was against peace. The world is for peace, the Roman empire was for peace, but it was through force and violence, not through nonviolence and invitation, like the contrasting Kingdom of God was which Jesus preached. There is no contradiction, because I never said what you said I did.
The Kingdom of God is not an external force that violently imposes itself upon others. It is a participatory Kingdom, that brings it into the world through us, which according to scripture is what the church is. It is made up of those who bring forth God into the world, through nonviolent means. There is no church/kingdom dividing wall. The kingdom and the church is made up of those who have the Spirit of Christ, and through Love, brings forth the kingdom into the world. The church is the body of Christ on earth.
Sorry it's not so literal, so externalized as you are wanting to see it as, as this way puts you on the hook a whole lot more, than imaging Jesus swinging a sword in your defense. It's up to us, through the Spirit, not our egos and our needs to defend ourselves against the bad people with swords and guns and whatnot.
I agree with all of this.
Or, as I prefer to see and find more value in understanding, it's the Jews that chose God, so God chose the Jews.
God chooses all who choose God.Oh dear. We really do read our biased into scripture. Yet, you have the Samaritan "dog" being exampled by Jesus as more righteous than those religious folks who claimed they had the "truth". His bias you hear here, is him showing how that even though the Jews considered the Samaritans as dogs, he sees them as more his children than the self-righteous priests, who used their scriptures against other humans of other ethic backgrounds. You have to complete the whole story, not just rip one phrase out of context and try to make it sound like Jesus had disdain for foreigners, like you do.
Why would I. It's simple. Go take your cell phone to your nearest Black neighbor, and record their response as you ask them their opinion about the flag. If they revere it like you do, and it brings you and your black brothers and sisters together in harmony as Southerns, than I'll drop my objection. Otherwise, you are willfully hurtful to your black brothers and sisters. And that, is anti-Christian. "Atheists will enter the kingdom of God before you do," to paraphrase Jesus. And indeed, I would agree. They are more loving to others than those claiming Christ while hating his neighbor.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
@Windwalker
In your post #295, all but the first two references to my post, have been attributed to the wrong post. Instead of being directed toward post #286, they go to post #262. Until this confusion is corrected I will not proceed further.
I will contact the mods concerning it. Get back with you then.
Good-Ole-Rebel
In your post #295, all but the first two references to my post, have been attributed to the wrong post. Instead of being directed toward post #286, they go to post #262. Until this confusion is corrected I will not proceed further.
I will contact the mods concerning it. Get back with you then.
Good-Ole-Rebel
arrg... I'll try to see what happened.
It looks like the mods fixed it.