Michael Hardner Posted May 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Your are reaching. The Golden Rule comes from the Bible. You can't argue that its meaning is different for people who have forgotten where it came from. It's not different: Maher didn't break it, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) then forgives the rapistThis is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of Christian theology. The act forgiving someone who has wronged you has nothing to do with absolving the person of guilt. It is intended to free the believer from resentment and anger that often consumes victims of crime. The guilty are still expended to pay for their crimes even if the victim forgives them. Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 This is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of Christian theology. The act forgiving someone who has wronged you has nothing to do with absolving the person of guilt. It is intended to free the believer from resentment and anger that often consumes victims of crime. The guilty are still expended to pay for their crimes even if the victim forgives them. The purpose of letting go and moving on is not rocket science. The guilty are expected to learn from the act of forgiveness that's been extended to them and reform themselves in the process. A rehabilitative justice system is simply a reflection of this fundamental good common sense. What we're seeing these days is political parties, governments and people like you encouraging the public to pick up and vicariously feel the resentment and anger that victims have quite properly let go of. Turning our justice system into a vengeance system is just plain nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 A good Christian stops the daughter from getting raped with as little physical violence as absolutely possible, then forgives the rapist, not seek vengeance via execution. Except for the parts where God condones fathers offering their daughters up to rapists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Except for the parts where God condones fathers offering their daughters up to rapists. Or that dispicable maggot Abraham offering up his own wife to be gangraped by Egyptians to avoid being harrased on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Except for the parts where God condones fathers offering their daughters up to rapists. That's in Genesis, isn't it? Or is it Exodus? Either way, that's what "those" Jews believe. Christians go for the New Testament. Edited May 21, 2011 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Romans 13: 1-10 Submission to Governing Authorities 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Love Fulfills the Law 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Excerpt from The Christian and Civil Government The authorities in view here are the governing authorities, those authorities which govern us politically. Submission to other authorities (e.g. wives to their husbands; slaves to their masters) is discussed elsewhere. These governmental authorities are assumed to be legitimate, for there are those who claim authority but are illegitimate. A Christian living in a country where a military coup has occurred may have to determine which government is actually in power. Under normal conditions, it is the government which is in place (see verse 1b). http://bible.org/seriespage/christian-and-civil-government-romans-131-7 Regarding capital punishment, refer to verses 2, 4 and 5. As for the shooting of an unarmed Bin Laden....we have to remember he was a criminal who committed and instigated acts of crimes in various parts of the world, a wanted man (dead or alive) by the law (issued by governments, and if I'm not mistaken by the UN(?)). And it's not as if we needed any trial to determine his guilt. Therefore, killing him was not against God's law, as clearly stated here: Romans 13:4 But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Edited May 21, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Except that whole "turn the other cheek" thing. While it is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek, many scholars do not believe pacifism, or nonresistance, is the essential point of His teaching in this passage or that He meant to "turn the other cheek" in all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23). John 18:22-23 22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. 23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. The Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face. Jesus specifically mentions striking the right side of the face in Matthew 5:39.To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way Westerners challenged one to a duel. Thus the principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered since insults do not threaten a personal safety. http://tkdtutor.com/TOPICS/Self-Defense/Self-Defense-In-Bible/Self-Defense-In-Bible-01.html Edited May 21, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is): “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." We cannot just pick out verses and interpret them the way they read. They have to be within the proper context, and with real thoughtful study. Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. Matt 5:38-39 Eye for Eye 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government-that is, taking vengeance-was also proper for an individual. Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times. Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from the Scripture with the words: "it is written"). To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments. http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm Edited May 21, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) It's not presumptuous to observe that in the English translation provided, recognizing that "but" followed by an admonition about the first clause is distinctly an instruction to not follow it too rigidly...if at all. Fortunately for my argument, English words and syntax have meanings and connotations which can be found out. If you think it means something else...by all means, enlighten me. Here is the passage being discussed: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Look at all the examples Jesus gave: Sue you and take your shirt. Force you to go one mile. Asks you. Borrow from you. These are civil issues! Like the ones Judge Judy will tackle in her court! Jesus did not give any reference to any violent acts, except the slapping on the right cheek. Why specifically the right cheek? Because that expression is a Jewish idiom that is described as an insult. So He's saying, don't get into a mud-slinging or insult-hurling match - slander/libel/defamation! Edited May 22, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 I can't speak for everybody,but in the case of 2001,I kinda expected it from that aprt of the world...Sadly...I was'nt shocked at all that a certain cadre of the Islamic populous would applaud the death of over 3000 people in the den of "The Great Satan".. However,I do agree that the flag waving,while to be expected,seemed a little over the top.I mean,it's not the Olympics.And it did seem to be more of a "We're #1" type of thing than "Yippee!!!Osama got a bullett in the brain!" Or....perhaps the flag-waving and display of celebration was more of a tit-for-tat directed towards the Muslims who celebrated on the street during 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Mayer does nail it perfectly. I've been saying the same thing about OBL and Obama, and Christian leaders and their foreign policies. Stephen Harper, Obama, Bush, whomever, they are shitty Christians Christ's main message was about loving thy neighbour, forgiveness, and non-violence. Quite hypocritical that Bush and Obama, the holy Christians they are, torture and execute people, when jesus himself was tortured and executed without resistance to "die for our sins". Looks like we're still sinning. I'm not making a judgment call on the OBL raid, i'm saying if you're a Christian and for torture/gitmo and murdering your enemy, you ain't a good Christian. For Obama/Bush policies (both leaders of givernment), check out my Bible passage and interpretation. As for Jesus offering no resistance at all when he was tortured and executed, He knew the time had come for Him to fulfill the reason why He was sent by His Father here on earth. How can He fulfill what He came to do - offering Himself as the Lamb to be sscrificed for our sins - if He doesn't die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) Michael Hardner, correct me if I misunderstood. Were you referring to yourself as an agnostic Christian? How can one be an agnostic and at the same time be a Christian? What is an agnostic Christian? Edited May 22, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 The act forgiving someone who has wronged you has nothing to do with absolving the person of guilt. It is intended to free the believer from resentment and anger that often consumes victims of crime. The guilty are still expended to pay for their crimes even if the victim forgives them. oh i agree. i never said the rapist didn't have to face justice for the crime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Michael Hardner, correct me if I misunderstood. Were you referring to yourself as an agnostic Christian? How can one be an agnostic and at the same time be a Christian? What is an agnostic Christian? An agnostic Christian follows Jesus' teachings without making judgement on the question of divinity. Many Christians don't consider this Christianity, but there is really no other way to describe it, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 oh i agree. i never said the rapist didn't have to face justice for the crime What timG wants is for the guilty to still feel the resentment and anger that victims have given up, he wants vengeance more than he wants justice. Promises by politicians to have the state crack down and get tough on the guilty are a direct appeal to this sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) What timG wants is for the guilty to still feel the resentment and anger that victims have given up, he wants vengeance more than he wants justice. What justice? What is vengence? It is not a clear cut as you would like to believe. You seem to be of the opinion that the only punishment that rapist deserves is a hug and an apology for all of horrible things that society did to him to turn him into a rapist. Many people disagree with you. That does not mean that people who disagree are out for vengence. It just means they have must higher standards when it comes to deciding what is just. Edited May 22, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Promises by politicians to have the state crack down and get tough on the guilty are a direct appeal to this sentiment. That is the job of protecting the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 What timG wants is for the guilty to still feel the resentment and anger that victims have given up, he wants vengeance more than he wants justice. Promises by politicians to have the state crack down and get tough on the guilty are a direct appeal to this sentiment. It depends on the seriousness of the crime. Even if the victim had forgiven the perpetrator.....aren't cases termed as such, "The people vs John Doe? As Saipan stated above, it's about protecting the people! Showing a clear consequence for crimes committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 What would Jesus do, preach that the state and the people are not required to follow the same prescription or adopt the same attitude towards the guilty that victims are? Would Jesus preach that 'it depends'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You seem to be of the opinion that the only punishment that rapist deserves is a hug and an apology for all of horrible things that society did to him to turn him into a rapist. Many people disagree with you. Including Jesus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Including Jesus?What is your point? Your are no Christian do your opinion on what Jesus woudl do or not do is irrelevant. The issue which your evaded is justice is not some absolute. What you call vengence many people would call fair. You can disagree but that does not make it right. What we need is a justice system that hands out punishments that the majority of people think is fair. The "hug a rapist" philosophy that you champion is only supported by a minority of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Looking over this thread and comparing to those who sought to trap Jesus with words back in the day, it's kind of sad and it's the same as it ever was. It's true, there's nothing new under the sun. Bigoted blowhards like Maher have bitterness in their minds that eats them from the inside out. I would hate to see what his personal life is like both now and in 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) What would Jesus do, preach that the state and the people are not required to follow the same prescription or adopt the same attitude towards the guilty that victims are? Would Jesus preach that 'it depends'? Actually I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'll try to address it. Here is what Jesus said and expect us to do: Romans 13: 1-10 Submission to Governing Authorities 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. Would Jesus preach that 'it depends'? Obviously you were referring to my previous response, so let me make that clear: It depends on the seriousness of the crime! Do you expect someone who stole a chocolate bar or someone guilty of slander to be punished in the same way cold-blooded muderers are punished? Edited May 23, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.