A Texas Welcome...come on in.

Windwalker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Windwalker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

As I said, if you want to discuss the Confederate flag, go to the 'Nikki Haley' thread.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The risk of violently confronting an intruder is much greater than being concealed in a house where an intruder is present in some other part of the house.

Removing yourself from the risky environment - e.g. by taking your second means of escape - eliminates the risk without exposing yourself to greater risk and without killing anyone.

Click to expand...