/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>848008

there are no verses in the bible, you need to take whole book and context into account before make conclusions like these

war, violence and rebellion are merely just tools. How you use them and what for are what determine whether or not they are sins

>>848010

Lol

>>848009

>war, violence and rebellion are merely just tools.

They are tools that go against the teachings of scripture. The whole Bible teaches that all righteousness comes from acting in accordance to God's will, while sin stems from behaving as your own god.

>Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

We are to show our love of God by following His commandments, even if that leads to our death. Our eternity in paradise will be worth the persecution of flesh.

>Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

>>848010

There is a God. Jesus Christ is His son. This can be proven logically. What is your alternative?

>>848008

>>Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

So the police enforcing laws isn't violence? winnie the poohing retard, life is war, the world is war.

>>848014

>the teachings of scripture

Mary, the One True Goddess, infallibly teaches us The Truth that all scripture is of Satan.

>This can be proven logically.

Shhhhh, no logic now, only Truth.

>>848014

Jesus used the tool of violence against the jews

in the temple. He whipped them, turned over tables, rebelled against them.

What do you mean by love? Which one? Do I have to blow my enemies in order to love them? Does God have to blow me in order to love me?

Doesn't God show his love by also scourging us and teaching us a lesson? We are supposed to strive to be like God and show agape to our enemies as well.

If we do not punish our enemies, their souls will be damned since they will tempted to do wrong again since they didn't get punished the first time.

>>848016

Serious posting: What do you mean? I've always believed God is real and my Father. Did you mean to reply to someone else? The "no space dad" part of the meme is literally a direct quote from the movie about an actual fake space dad, not an attack on God.

>>848017

>>848015

>So the police enforcing laws isn't violence?

It is violence. Hence why John the Baptist told the soldiers to lay down their arms. A ruler is not inherently righteous, even though they enact the will of God. The king above all kings is God, so we listen to his commandments first, and the gaps are filled by leaders on Earth.

>Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

>Titus 3:1-2 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

>>848018

Why would you follow the teachings of a woman against the prophets of God?

>>848019

>Jesus used the tool of violence against the jews in the temple. He whipped them

That is not what happened. Let's look at the two cleanses of the temple:

>Matthew 21:12-13 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

>John 2:13-16 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

These may be describing the same incident, but let's examine each individually. In the first verse, Jesus overturned tables of moneychangers and knocked over the seats of those that sold doves. This is not an act of violence, he inflicted no physical harm to anybody.

In the second verse, Jesus makes a whip to hit the sheep and oxen with. It does not say he whipped the Jews, it says he drove them out of the temple. He whipped their animals and cause them to run, prompting the sellers to chase after them, out of the temple. He then talks to the sellers of doves and tells them to leave, who were still in the temple because they didn't have animals they needed to chase. There is no indication of physical harm to another human being in either of these verses.

>We are supposed to strive to be like God and show agape to our enemies as well.

No. We are to strive to be like Jesus, who was meek unto all men. We do not have the authority of God, we must obey his commandments. We are to love our enemies and leave the punishment up to God. Don't worry, God is perfectly just. Those who do not obey and love the Lord will suffer eternal punishment.

>Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

>>848021

>We are to strive to be like Jesus, who was meek unto all men.

Are you sure you're thinking of the Biblical Jesus? He was snarkier than a capes— hero and promised genocide when He comes back.

>>848023

>Are you sure you're thinking of the Biblical Jesus?

I certainly am.

>2 Corinthians 10:1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:

>He was snarkier than a capes— hero

It sounds as though you do not understand the character of Jesus Christ. Jesus was full of peace and love, and argued in good faith in order to show us the truth of God that we may be saved. He was by no means "snarky".

>James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

>promised genocide when He comes back

That is after our death and resurrection. In this life, we are to be peaceful and meek servants of God.

>1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

>>848024

And I don't give a fukk. What you're implying meek means contradicts with Jesus' actions in the rest of the New Testament whom we are called to imitate. Get fukked.

>>848008

>there is no justified self defense.

Then why does John the Baptist tell the soldiers to keep doing their jobs?

Luke 3:14

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

>There is no indication of physical harm to another human being in either of these verses.

Are you implying some kind of libertarian non-aggression principle with this statement?

>>848100

>Then why does John the Baptist tell the soldiers to keep doing their jobs?

This article explains it well. They can keep their jobs and still live in line with the gospel, but they should be ready to face the consequences for not complying to the violent acts required of them.

https://enemylove.com/did-john-the-baptist-tell-the-repentant-soldiers-to-leave-the-military/

>Are you implying some kind of libertarian non-aggression principle with this statement?

I am saying that the Bible commands us to be pacifists, like it or not. We must follow the teachings of Christ, God does not have to justify his Word. However, if you aren't quite satisfied by this answer, then you must remember that our time on this Earth is very short in the face of eternal salvation. Isn't the preservation of the flesh just a form of vanity? Should we corrupt our souls so that we can have a few more years or decades of existence in this life? We must do as Christ did and submit our flesh to the authorities of this world, that we may stay righteous and spiritually free.

>Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

>Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

>>848158

While i am sympathetic to total pacifism, that interpretation was such a cringy asspull, it's stupid.

The point was to not shake down people for money, which is a frequent thing that happens when you live under abusive military/police/mobsters.

>They can keep their jobs and still live in line with the gospel, but they should be ready to face the consequences for not complying to the violent acts required of them.

That makes no sense.

That's like saying "you should continue being a meth cooker, but be ready to face the consequences when you are asked to cook meth".

>>848162

So how else should I interpret the words "do violence to no man"?

>>848180

And also can you point me to any verses where Jesus or the apostles allow for violence? How do explain the verse:

>Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

>>848180

Don't shake down people for money.

It's tied to the context, and the way the Roman Empire was structured.

>>848184

You know there are verses in the Bible that say take vengeance and show no pity right? If you ignore the overall story and cherrypick disjointed sentences you can """prove""" anything. The kikes practice pilpul to exploit this fact for persuasion purposes but I mean you're probably a kike yourself so you already know this and are practicing it right now.

>>848208

>Don't shake down people for money.

That is not what it says. The verse clearly states to do violence to NO man, not just people they would shake down for money.

>>848210

>You know there are verses in the Bible that say take vengeance and show no pity right?

Where are these verses? In fact there are verses that say the exact opposite.

>Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

>Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

>2 Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

>>848008

You're forgetting the part where Jesus himself committed violence in the synagogue. Did Jesus sin?

>>848222

see >>848021

Another verse that explicitly speaks against fighting and war:

>James 4:1-3 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

“Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed; For in the image of God have human beings been made.”

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:6‬

Obvious‭ly this can't be a command to infinitely kill each other or there would be no people left. So what's the point here? It's in the last sentence. Humans are made in the image of God and will deliver justice like God. Quoting cherrypicked scripture to people isn't going to take away their God given instincts, especially if I can so easily counter with more scripture. I can also quote more scripture ordering us to be ruthless and deliver vengeance.

>>848234

>I can also quote more scripture ordering us to be ruthless and deliver vengeance.

I am pretty sure all of those are commands to the Old Testament nation of Israel though.

>>848240

Yeah, I guess God told "the light to the nations" to do it because He didn't want other nations to do it.

>>848241

All of the commands to Israel are fulfilled in the true chosen person, Christ.

>>848232

>Ok so they use the NIV.

The article goes through all translations then looks at the original Greek. The KJV says to do violence unto no man.

>Thus, based on our study of the three Greek verbs used in Luke 3:14, when these soldiers asked what they must do to bear fruit worthy of repentance, John the Baptist’s answer can best be understood as meaning the following three intertwined instructions:

>1) Do not inflict violence on anyone. Do not even intimidate others with the threat of violence.

>2) Do not make false charges against people in order to defraud them of the things that make for their peace and safety.

>3) Instead of using your power and authority to extort others of their money and possessions, learn to be content with your wages. View your allotment as enough.

>Do these article writers think that John the Baptist was not inspired by God to give the prophecies we find in the Gospels? Do they think he was not inspired to speak those things? Apparently so. And that is where you and I must differ.

I agree with you, I do believe that John the Baptist was compelled to speak by the Holy Ghost. The article is just a way to demonstrate that what John the Baptist says does not contradict itself. I disagree with the author of the article on the point you bring up.

>Peace is through strength. If you want to tell us all to be unprepared to face challenges, all that is going to happen is that the people we are supposed to protect, will be harmed. That is the opposite of being pacifist and pro-peace.

This is self-contradicting. It is illogical to do violence to others in order to prevent violence. A single sin is not worth the protection of the world, as we see in the temptation of Christ.

>Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

>If you are conscientiously objecting to engaging in any form of force, that is your right to do.

I conscientiously object to engaging in any form of force (against another person) because that is what the Bible commands us to do.

>This is a similar case to vegetarianism.

The Bible allows us to eat meat. It does not allow us to do violence.

>1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

>There are higher things than the preservation of the flesh, but it is still a duty to uphold.

This highest thing is to love God, and thus follow His commandments.

>John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

>Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

>We cannot say this while granting abortions and killings to go on around us.

God is in control. If He allows these things to happen, we can use the sword of Christ (written scripture) to point out the error of their ways, but if they choose not to listen, it is out of our hands.

>Matthew 10:14-15 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

>You cannot say that these are commanded against when taken in context of what Paul said in Romans 13.

We are still to submit ourselves to our government authorities if they are corrupt. In fact they are almost always corrupt. You are right that we should not follow laws that contradict with our commandments from God, but this does not mean that rebellion is in order. All rulers are appointed by God, and generally they make laws that incentivize good works. For example the United Stated promotes charity, punishes thievery and murder, allows churches to be built (something that was NOT allowed at the time when Romans was written), etc.

>1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

>1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Does that mean we should steal food if our children are starving? Or lie to improve the well-being of our family? This verse does not indicate that you can break other commandments, only that a father should work his hardest to feed his kids.

>Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

>>848250

Christ said to follow the Old Testament.

>>848282

Incorrect.

>Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

>>848280

>The article goes through all translations then looks at the original Greek.

The fact the cite the NIV first and at all is an indication that they consider it to be of merit. Hence, I disagree already.

The NIV also uses different Greek. If you have studied much on the difference between the Textus Receptus and the Eclectic text, you would know that they differ in the original Greek too in thousands of places, resulting in completely divergent translations. The NIV and other modern translations are actually translations of a different document, despite the fact they would rather people not be generally aware of this.

>The KJV says to do violence unto no man.

Διασείω, f. σω, (διὰ & σείω) to shake ; to use with violence, treat with insolence, disturb, vex, fill with uneasiness & terror, Lu. 3.14.

–Greenfield, Greek Lexicon (1829), p. 99.

>I disagree with the author of the article on the point you bring up.

Then why do you quote them. Also if you disagree then that means you must agree that they were fine continuing their line of work. The article writers tried to get out of this by claiming that he said something against Christ(!)

>It is illogical to do violence to others in order to prevent violence.

I'm going with the Biblical definition here not your definition. I have seen progressive modernists redefine the word violence too many times. They say stuff like words are violence, silence is violence, etc. Enough of that. You are doing something similar here, it seems.

>A single sin is not worth the protection of the world,

You have to show where someone is sinning. Show first from the Bible where someone is sinning.

>because that is what the Bible commands us to do.

And we are still waiting for you to show us where in the Bible it is said.

>we can use the sword of Christ (written scripture) to point out the error of their ways, but if they choose not to listen, it is out of our hands.

This is all true of course. It is out of the individual's or the church's hands to prosecute anyone's case. But it is not out of the government's hands. We contribute to the government, and the government has a justice system and maintains order. Some people, like soldiers are paid and John said they should receive their wages. Therefore, everyone gets along. Within the law, they are allowed to maintain order by force if necessary, and since it is lawful, therefore it is not unjust force. This explains what John the Baptist was talking about here where they should continue to do their work justly.

>Does that mean we should steal food if our children are starving? Or lie to improve the well-being of our family?

I think you already know the answer to that question.

We all know that anarchists aren't serious. They just want to overthrow the government and replace it with something more authoritarian to their liking. Of course, we all know they do not want to openly admit this. Yet in Romans 13 I see no indication that the higher powers are by definition sinning. They are not sinning, for as long as they are being just and not malfeasant.

Anarchists would have them stand down and have a new authoritarian system take over that they can then suck up to. They like to talk about utopia a lot, until things are so destabilized that order is overthrown by disorder and criminals run free. This is of course what they actually want. They just will not come out and admit it, usually.

There is a difference, then, between a true conscientious objector and a plain anarchist, that despises government (2 Peter 2:10).

>>848285

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:17-20‬ ‭

“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.“

Romans 15:4

>>848289

>Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.

Yes, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. Do you not think Christ is going to fulfill all the commandments?

>>848287

>Διασείω, f. σω, (διὰ & σείω) to shake ; to use with violence, treat with insolence, disturb, vex, fill with uneasiness & terror, Lu. 3.14.

Let's forget about the article. The original text clearly means to do no violence, despite how the newer translations may try to twist the words. The soldier would likely hear this and decide to quit, because it is very difficult to be a soldier and do no violence. But then why does John the Baptist not tell him to stop being a soldier? Because being a soldier is in itself not a sin. The sin comes from violence, lying, and stealing. You can participate in a corrupt system (such as paying taxes to a government that persecutes Christians) while not being at fault of sin yourself. I'm assuming that there are some limits to this, such as coding a database for a pornography company, but the Bible at least makes it clear that paying taxes to a godless king is not only not sinful, but required if you live as part of that society.

>I'm going with the Biblical definition here not your definition. I have seen progressive modernists redefine the word violence too many times. They say stuff like words are violence, silence is violence, etc.

That is not what I am saying at all. Violence means to physically harm another person. Even flipping tables and whipping animals would not count as violence. What other Biblical definition are you referring to?

>And we are still waiting for you to show us where in the Bible it is said.

Jesus very clearly tells us to NOT resist evil. Do not fight back against your enemy.

>Matthew 5:39-44 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

>But it is not out of the government's hands. We contribute to the government, and the government has a justice system and maintains order. Some people, like soldiers are paid and John said they should receive their wages.

Jesus recognizes that his message will not create a utopia. There will still be government, there will still be sin. The message he gives us instruction in how to live in the real world, rather than an idealized one. We are to submit to our worldly authorities, even if they do not have Christ within them (exempting laws that go against the commandments of God, of course).

>Yet in Romans 13 I see no indication that the higher powers are by definition sinning. They are not sinning, for as long as they are being just and not malfeasant.

Paul talks of how the government is an earthly extension of God's authority.

>Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

It is true that Paul does not specifically say that the leaders are sinful in their dispensation of justice. However, he also does not say they are righteous. Keep in mind that the Roman government at the time oversaw the execution of Jesus Christ. When Paul spoke to Caesar, Caesar rejected Christ and imprisoned Paul.

>>848289

>Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus Christ fulfilled this law. We are living under grace now, not the Law of Moses.

>Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

>Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

In fact, Jesus himself even breaks some of the old laws.

>Mark 2:23-28 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

>Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The old law was created so man could have understanding of the will of God. We are not under the same commands today, but the overall message is the same.

>Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

>>848294

>understand the will of God

>b-but don't do the will of God mkay

>>848309

I'll consent that it is possible to interpret this verse to mean that soldiers should stop extorting money from people, and not a prohibition of violence. That being said, the lack of any verse that permits for violence in the New Testament as well as the abundant verses about repaying enemies with kindness, not being fierce or avenging yourself, submitting to government authorities, and dying by swords still has me convinced that Christ commands us to be pacifists.

>Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

>>848310

Regardless of why I think the Old Law was fulfilled in favor of a new state of grace is irrelevant, the New Testament still makes it very clear that there is a distinction between the way of life before Christ and the way of life after his death. Otherwise we would still be sacrificing animals and reading the Shema morning and night.

http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Law%20of%20God/THE%20613%20LAWS%20of%20the%20OLD%20TESTAMENT.pdf

>>848361

>Otherwise we would still be sacrificing animals

Paul explained why we don't do that.

>Shema

I don't understand your kike words, kike. I knew you were a filthy kike trying to subvert us.

>>848361

>I'll consent that it is possible to interpret this verse to mean that soldiers should stop extorting money from people, and not a prohibition of violence.

It's kinda more than that.

Verses like this, or, for example the one about being forced to walk a mile are direct jabs at the roman military.

>That being said, the lack of any verse that permits for violence in the New Testament as well as the abundant verses about repaying enemies with kindness, not being fierce or avenging yourself, submitting to government authorities, and dying by swords still has me convinced that Christ commands us to be pacifists.

And some early Holy Fathers agree that's a better option to take individually.

However, we had no problem venerating military saints, so military violence in various circumstances was seen as morally justified by the early Church.

>>848368

>I don't understand your kike words, kike. I knew you were a filthy kike trying to subvert us.

Oh, for crying out loud, can you contain your neurotic obsession with jews for one second?

It's not his fault you can't google a word.

The Shema is an OT practice of reciting a certain verse of Deuteronomy as a proclamation of monotheism.

>>848372

>defends kikes and has a clear understanding of kike terminology

I knew the ortholarper was a kike too. You're all getting exposed here, finally.

>>848374

>clear understanding

I ran the word through a search engine, and read the first 2 links, you winnie the pooh moron.