*************
M*W: That we are in the Age of Aquarius.
no implications?
*************
M*W: That we are in the Age of Aquarius.
Secondly, the Quotation in Matthew 5:38-39 is from Deuteronomy 19:21 and the ruling is limited to a magistrate's court, which is clear from Deuteronomy 19:18.
To misaaply verse 39, then, to such issues as "no self defense," "attempted murder," and international war is to betray ignorance of the scriptures.
no implications?
I don’t think there would be a problem with someone making a lot of money and giving almost all of it away to charity as quickly as he made it. But how many rich Christians – and there are a lot of them – actually give almost all of their money away? Virtually none. They choose to ignore that part, because they don't want to live that sort of lifestyle. Much like you apparently ignore the parts where Jesus tells people not to defend themselves or object if people steal things from them, presumably because you don't want to live that sort of lifestyle.Jesus commanded that the Gospel be preached in all the world, that takes money, don't you think?
I would venture that born again Christians give away a much higher percentage of their incomes than others do.
How else would the Gospel be preached in all the world?
That was his mission. It's why he was born. He could have prevented it at any time, he could have healed himself, jumped off the cross, and....well, whatever.In the end, he let the Romans kill him. I could imagine no greater example of pacifism.
This may simply be because there was no need to fight. Jesus was there to be crucified. It was his purpose. It's why he was born.And as soon as he took it out Jesus scolded him and told him to put it away.
Now this is true. It's why I started this thread. That particular idea has never sat well with me. I assume I'm misunderstanding the quote, but your interpretation certainly seems reasonable.Here's the deal: You like most things about Christianity, but you don't like the idea of being a total door mat, so you're choosing to ignore the multiple instances in which Jesus commands his followers to be door mats.
You say that you assume you're misunderstanding the passage. I assume that this means you think it wasn't to be taken literally, and that the Bible needs to be interpreted to discover what the real message is. Now, that's fine - if that's the view you want to take. What bothers me is that so many Christians insist that certain parts of the Bible must be taken literally, but then go on to either ignore the parts that they don't like (usually the parts that would require them to make some sort of major lifestyle change) or try to interpret them to give them some meaning other than the one that they plainly have.Now this is true. It's why I started this thread. That particular idea has never sat well with me. I assume I'm misunderstanding the quote, but your interpretation certainly seems reasonable.
Still, the God of the Old Testiment is no pacifist. And Jesus said he was here not to change the law but to fulfil it. So.......
Exactly. Anyone who actually took the Bible literally would give most of their money away to charity and spend all their time volunteering at homeless shelters or adopting orphans. Instead you have all these people who claim to be "born-again" Christians who don't actually do anything to help their fellow man, but don't hesitate to completely freak out at the thought of evolution being taught in schools.A lot of Christians (namely the fundamentalists) fulfill the anti-Christ prophecy perfectly...
I've always found it hilarious that the very people who scream the loudest about the importance of taking the Bible literally when it comes to things like evolution are also some of the most eager to do mental gymnastics when they want to ignore a Bible verse that they don't personally like. When the Bible describes the exact manner in which God created the world, we need to take that literally. When it says that homosexuality is bad, we need to take that literally.
But when it explicitly says that you shouldn't object to people taking your possessions, or defend yourself when someone strikes you, or that you shouldn't be rich...well, now of course we need to interpret it in order to figure out what it really means. Because after all, just taking what it says literally would be crazy, right?