McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I believe this is the thread he is talking about:Where is the Nikki Haley forum? Do you have a link?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe this is the thread he is talking about:Where is the Nikki Haley forum? Do you have a link?
I believe this is the thread he is talking about:
fair warning though....
Grab your hip waders.
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.Take it to the 'Nikki Haley' forum. Educate yourself...if that is possible. I will respond.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Or... we could just not enable nor engage with the silly word redefinition games at all.I believe this is the thread he is talking about:
fair warning though....
Grab your hip waders.
If he chooses to engage I would strongly suggest getting a boat....Or... we could just not enable nor engage with the silly word redefinition games at all.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where is the Nikki Haley forum? Do you have a link?
Why do you so often want others to do your homework?It is in the North American Politics section also. Page 2. Just type in 'Nikki Haley' in the search column.
Good-Ole-Rebel
How could you get the history of Yeshua BarYosef so wrong?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
There are hundreds and hundreds of different Christian Creeds, but what you have described is just crazy stuff, honestly.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
Why do you so often want others to do your homework?
I've read it.I've already done the work. If you want to read it, read it. If you don't, don't.
Good-Ole-Rebel
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've already done the work. If you want to read it, read it. If you don't, don't.
Good-Ole-Rebel
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?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 .
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.That Kingdom was always the one promised to Israel in the Old Testament.
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.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.
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?When the King returns, violence will again take place.
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.Violence surrounded Jesus Christ as many wanted Him dead.
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.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.
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.Jesus and Gandhi are not comparable. It is the comparison that I have a disdain for.
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.And, Jesus was not resisting any government through non-violence. He was not resisting any government at all.
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 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.
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?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.
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.You contradict yourself. You say the world is against peace and now you say the world is for peace.
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.Within the Church there is 'love'. But we are not talking about the Church, we are talking about the Kingdom.
I agree with all of this.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.
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.The intent was that God chose the Jews above all others.
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.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.
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.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
arrg... I'll try to see what happened.@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
It looks like the mods fixed it.@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