Oh man I guess I know the wrong people in MA

itll die out after the older generations do, probably

If we punished print media every time they lied to us we wouldn't have print media anymore.

itll die out after the older generations do, probably

Ah yeah, the ole' switcheroo. Totally not bullshit or anything.

They didn't switch sides democrats changed strategy

you got to absolutely LOVE it when the faggots like to agree with the ideology that "im not respnsible for my ancestors owning slaves" yet somehow agree that democrats are responsible for old democrats. i dont agree that either are responsible for the past, just pointing out hypocrisy

Having to read this comp nearly brought me to tears of autism, it's good to see the educated side of funnyjunk taking a stance.

Yeah, cause giving a whole race of people free stuff to keep them subservient to voting for you that isn't racist or anything...

you mean like this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Sure i guess, if this was back before 1865, but it isn't.

I'm talking more about the democrats giving the blacks on welfare every damn thing they need to exploit the system, then promise them more if they vote for them... You know something current to 2015.

OR like how they don't wanna stop illegal immigation, and instead make them all citsens for nothing more than votes... You know 2015.

I agree with you. FJ may come out to hate liberal tumblrtards but there are a fuck ton of socialists here too. They aren't as bad, but still.

HUOOOHHHH I DI-DI-DIn't know that

I think that's because women take off work more, I read an article on that. If the kid gets sick, mom is more likely to miss work than dad is.

I was talking about the "retarded" one, yeah. ty

...people actually go for that first one?...

I doubt most of us would act like that in front of a woman. We wouldn't talk to her but just stare at her from the opposite end of the room like a creep.

As a person who lives in the "quiet corner" I agree.

We don't even have money

south connecticut is rad. anything else is ballsdick.

What are you talking about, Southern CT is rad

Other than the beaches, it's a fart fest

New Haven has drugs and Bridgeport is disgusting and sticky like a small child's hand

Fairfield county is full of rich NYC pricks. It's all boring or depressing.

wallingford, cheshire, suffield, greenwich, fairfield. All fun, great towns

As someone who lives there, I agree. I want out. Luckily I live directly on the border of Mass so I can at least get cheap gas and better liquor.

Thompson?

Or are you one of those westies with all the money

Or the ones in the center with all the drugs

I live in the poor area of the wealthy area. It really sucks and I hate the people here, but the area(geographically) is nice.

Ah.

I live in the literal bumfuck nowhere part of the state where nothing but agriculture and delicious jellies happen

The poor area here also has agriculture. I have a massive field in front of my house.

I live in the currently biggest tiny town so I don't deal with creepy cornfields as much but on route 101 and route 6 there's fields and pastures lining each side. I mean it's a pretty little drive, but there's very little out there to convince me to leave.

Of course, if you go out into woodstock or sterling you suddenly become aware that if someone killed you right on the road the only things that would hear you scream are the crows who come to eat the corn.

And if they hid your body in one of the stone walls, it wouldn't be found for months because almost nobody goes that way except for the occupants of the three houses spread two miles apart.

It's eerie, and why I can say I do know what it's like to live in the middle of nowhere.

We just are a very small fragment of nowhere.

I live on a lake(Congamond or however it's spelled) with a field and mountain in front of my house. Also I have good for nothing stoners all on my street.

I live next to literal white trash, newly wed couples not quite smart enough to realize that this area holds nothing for them, retirees and families like me who had little option due to jobs or whatever.

For a retired person, my neighborhood is relatively wonderful. Yards to actually do shit with, other old people, a slow turtle pace...

For me, Massachusetts' cut throat, fast paced attitude just seems to get more and more inviting.

as someone who grew up in connecticut, i agree

Well, Republicans aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed if you catch my drift...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone typto, which means to strike repeatedly

www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html

your siagōn

www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html

So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the shit out of you, do not repay him with violence'

Seems pretty anti violent to me.

which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."


I find it hard a serious beating to the face is 'an insult to honor' only

Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.
Luke 22:36 response to the cucks thinking that it has anything to do with Jesus being anti Self defense
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped

Except you're fucking wrong.

He openly advocated self defense and self preservation
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Everyone uses the "turn the other cheek" stuff to pretend that Jesus wanted people to just accept whatever came to them. But they ignore the parable of the thief, where the wise action is for the homeowner to be prepared for a thief--with a weapon, to defend his shit. Modern weapons are guns. 'Nuff said.

Incorrect. To take Luke 22:36 literally is odd, especially considering two swords was somehow enough for 12.

Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

Whats more, Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Seems to me Jesus wasn't 'cool' with swords at all.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Matthew 5:9

So what is it about? Well if you read the next verse

Luke 22:37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

Jesus says the exact reason they need to have swords. To fulfill prophesy. His outcry of 'it is enough' seems to indicate his distaste for these swords

Yeah, I feel like they took the whole 'two swords," thing out of context. I doubt Jesus would want his disciples to be armed.

Peacemakers doesn't refer to those who do not fight, but those who bring conflict to an end.

The idea that Jesus was completely anti violence in all cases isn't backed up by scripture at all.

I'll reply up here. I already replied to your romans, you just refuse to read the essay. you only replied to the header.

Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)

Yeah, as for that, you presume that violence can be good, which you have yet to prove in my view. Jesus talks about being good to your enemies and praying for them. Sooooo

As for the middle one, the answer is something you've already said. We are called to submit to them in good and righteous things. However we are to steadfast refuse in the case where God takes priority. For example, should I 'submit' if the ruler commands me to kill a child? Should I 'submit' that abortion is legal?

You've already said we shouldn't submit in the case where they are unrighteous and try to triumph God.

>God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course.

/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/216#216

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone typto, which means to strike repeatedly

www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html

your siagōn

www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G4600-siagon.html

So when Jesus said 'hey if someone is beating the shit out of you, do not repay him with violence'

Seems pretty anti violent to me.

which is normally the 'cheek' part of the translation, but means jaw, offer the other also."


"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI

Also I think this ends the debate pretty handily.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matt 10:34)

Jesus literally said when he spoke of that he was speaking of the conflict that would arise, those that would 'persecute you in my name'. It was a speech about how his disciples would experience persecution, not that they should go around doing persecuting

It hardly ends the debate. You completely isolated the verse from what was said immediately thereafter\ and are doing a completely shallow reading of it.

I just read the entire speech, he was referring to the conflict that would arise in his name, and how children would rebel against parents to put them to death, and how houses will turn against each other in his name. That is conflict.

Do pacifists spread conflict?

I don't know if you've picked up a history book, but yes, pacifists spread conflict.

zenpencils.com/comic/24-george-carlin-on-assassination-explicit/

the very definition of pacifist refutes that.

"a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."

You obviously didn't read the comic.

The point of my reply is pointing out pacifists are the ones that are often targeted for violence or their followers are targeted for violence

hint hint

I did before a while back, its reposted constantly.

We're not talking about if pacifists are targeted for violence, I agree with that, we're talking about if pacifists themselves spread and create conflict themselves.

Spreading a non violent message with the intent and foresight to create non violence is something a pacifist would do, and they are they attacked for it by those who are upset by the message.

However what the disciples were instructed to do was much different. They would spread their message knowing it would cause violent conflict, with children killing their parents and families warring against each other. They knew this would happen, Jesus knew this would happen.

If anything he was spreading a righteous war meant to overturn the establishment.

Do Pacifists knowingly spread conflict that they know will cause violence? If so I defy you to explain to me why ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists if they never hurt anyone themselves.

Considering that Jesus himself promised a war that would engulf the world and subjugate all the peoples of the earth I do believe that he would support some forms of violence, if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.

How is Jesus responsible for the actions other take upon themselves because he says 'Hey if someone beats the shit out of your face, don't hit back?'

Are you saying God is responsible for evil?

> if it was righteous violence, such as defending the helpless.
Ah yes, the defend my neighbor arugment.

"The third method of answering is still shrewder than the previous one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil is directed against him personally, it ceases to be obligatory when the evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then a Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but is also obliged in the defence of his neighbors, contrary to the commandment, to use violence against the violators.

...

If this important limitation, which radically undermines the meaning of the commandment, entered Christ’s mind, there ought somewhere to be mention made of it. But in all the preaching and the life of the teacher there is not only no such limitation, but, on the contrary, there is expressed a particular caution against such a false and offensive limitation, which destroys the commandment. The mistake and the blunder of such a limitation is with particular clearness shown in the Gospel in connection with the judgment of Caiaphas, who made this very limitation. He recognized that it was not good to execute innocent Jesus, but he saw in Him danger, not for himself, but for the whole nation, and so he said: “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” And more clearly still was the negation of such a limitation expressed in the words said to Peter when he attempted with violence to resist the evil which was directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not defending himself, but his beloved and divine teacher. And Christ directly forbade him to do so, saying that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword.

Besides, the justification of violence used against a neighbor for the sake of defending another man against worse violence is always incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is not yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be greater — whether the evil of my violence or of that against which I wish to defend my neighbor. We execute a criminal, thus freeing society from him, and we are positively unable to tell whether the criminal would not have changed on the morrow and whether our execution is not a useless cruelty. We lock up a man whom we suppose to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with tomorrow this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile. I see that a man whom I know to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and I have a gun in my hand — I kill the robber and save the girl; the robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to me what would happen if that were not the case. What an enormous amount of evil must take place, as it actually does, as the result of arrogating to ourselves the right to prevent an evil that may occur! Ninety-nine hundredths of the evil of the world, from the Inquisition to dynamite bombs and the executions and sufferings of tens of thousands of so-called political criminals, are based on this reflection."
Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You

I'm saying he knowingly spread that message knowing conflict would arise. Pacifists exist to end conflict, not start it.

No, I don't think hes responsible for evil because it was a righteous message that needed to spread, no matter the cost of violence and conflict. You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.

That paragraph presumes alot, I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it. The bible also lists many, many instances of divine approved defense and war when the ten commandments were in effect, so using them as a justification for no self defense and no war is ignorant at best. Christ even said that he came to fulfill the old law, and the old law approved of righteous wars.

If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple? That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.

Jesus dying was meant to happen, which is why he stopped peter, it wasn't a condemnation of anyone who defends the weak, though jesus was not weak. The evil lies with the sinful aggressor, it always has from the days of the tribes of israel. Yes one can have a change of heart later, but the weak are not that mercy of evil simply because they are good. Jesus did not preach for a world where evil ran rampant with no good to exert itself, we know by what happened with Noah that god doesnt favor that.

That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.

>I'm saying he knowingly spread that message knowing conflict would arise. Pacifists exist to end conflict, not start it.

Again, how is that His fault? How is it His fault people reject Him? Ghandi could've said the same thing, does this make him ipso facto a nonpacifists because he said 'yeah the british will probably start attacking me/us'

>You also didn't answer how ISIS propagandists aren't pacifists as well for spreading their message non violently.

Their message is of violence.

> I don't think any christian is obligated to have evil inflicted upon himself and just take it

It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what Christ said.

And he said

/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197

>If Christians are supposed to allow evil to effect them with no resistance then why did jesus act against the defacers of the temple?

I never claimed that pacifism meant submission. I talked about how the cleansing of the temple, if taken literally, was a fine example of nonviolent resistance.

>That could have easily resulted in physical violence, yet he did it anyway.

Again, a pacifist acting peacefully has no responsibility to how the others respond. When Martin Luther King sat in on the whites only restaurants, was he being nonpacifist because the police could've acted brutally and unjustly?


>That man sounds like a politician first and a christian second.
>Tolstoy
>Politician
>up started the christian anarchy movement
AHAHAHAHAH

It's his "fault" because he knew it would happen. Ghandi is not omnipotent, he did not proclaim to know the results of his actions. Jesus did. He knew there would be death and violence and he did it anyway. Not a pacifist.

Think of the mindset of those times. Someone going forth and proclaiming to be god and to perform miracles such as raising the dead in tight nit religious communities. That is almost a call to war in and of itself, a war on the old way. Heresy.

Paul himself affirms the right of governments as ministers of god to avenge acts of evil.

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."
(Romans 13:3-4)

Jesus follows up on that, and it speaks more to your anti government force leanings.
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
(1 Peter 2:13-4)

Jesus even advises us to overcome evil with good
"not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good"
(1 Peter 2:13-4)

What happened in the temple was not non violent, no more than blowing up a building is non violent. It is a provocation. Pacifists dont purposely provoke violence. Anyone who does is not a pacifist by the definition of the word.

I stand by what I said, he has let his political anarchists views mold his perception of scripture falsely.

So you do say God is responsible for evil then. It's either his fault or it isn't. He can't not take responsibility, but do at the same time because it's convenient for your argument. He speaking specifically of unjust violence very clearly, that christians would be persecuted and killed. So you are saying God is responsible for evil.



"Christian opponents of pacifism cite Romans 13:1-7 more than any other one biblical text to support the moral legitimacy of violence. This text has been used by many Christians throughout history to support the idea that Christians owe their government allegiance, even to the point of obeying the state when it proposes to send Christians to fight wars.

One of the problems with traditional uses of this text is isolating it from the rest of the New Testament teaching. Romans 13:1-7 is treated as if it contains all that the New Testament has to say regarding the Christian attitude toward the state. The New Testament alludes to the state in diverse ways. Texts such as Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; and Titus 3:1 presenting a more positive view of the state. In contrast, Revelation 13; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Matthew 4/ Luke 4; and Ephesians 6:12 show the state in more negative terms."

peacetheology.net/pacifism/9-romans-13-an-interpretation/

Of course you won't bother reading it because somehow, using an external source in a debate is being 'incomprehensible'.


This debate is going nowhere. I'll let you have the last word and we'll end it.

/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/225#225

these

No, you're using people interpreting quotes, thats much different.

And that is a prophecy, is it not? I thought you said we need not worry about the way things would work in the ends times during the second coming? Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible. Regardless we're getting off topic.

You follow scripture except for the verses calling government ministers of god who bear swords with the right to avenge evil acts. Gotcha.

I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.

Acts isn't a prophecy. Acts is what happened immediately after Jesus died...

> Even still socialism, though democratically elected, would still require forcing those who didn't want it to participate, which completely destroys the voluntary communal system that was presented in the bible.

Yeah, I just said I wouldn't want that. When I say democratic, I mean 100% consensus man. Not a 4:5 split. Though I can understand the misunderstanding

>I've asked you repeatedly to try to explain all three, don't pretend that this is the first time I've asked.

Yeah our debate got split off into like 4 different chains. Forgive me, at 2am I need a refresher. Which ones are you referring to?

I doubt you are considering you're literally getting all your arguments from a group that has to argue around scripture to fit their political views.

The scripture is what decides what is christain or not, not how people who say they are christains act. Also its up for debate on whether they were truly pacifist or not.

That quote is more about humility than being anti military. According to you that verse would also mean that we should demolish government and currency said he decided to live humbly, though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.

Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.

They aren't sound theological positions because they contradict the word of god directly. You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.

To me that is the epitome of being an ideologue over being a christian.

I presume to know scripture, I don't need to know anything about that man to understand the bible. Perhaps you do.

Also, you misunderstand tolstoys position. His anarchy does not overtake his pacifism. He calls to refuse to serve government, but yes submit to them since it's difficult/impossible to resist governments nonviolently.

His anarchy stems mostly from his nonviolence. He in no way contradicts the call to submit to governing authorities.

Don't talk and presume about things you know nothing about

>I doubt you are considering you're literally getting all your arguments from a group that has to argue around scripture to fit their political views.

I'm using quotes. That's not bad fashion in a debate.

>though I imagine thats exactly how you want to spin it.

I'm not a Christian anarchist, I'm a christian. At that, no, I don't buy Tolstoys ideological claims of anarchy. I consider myself a socialist, more or less. So long as that socialism was decided democratically. Though I do acknowledge the impracticality of implementing it, it is possible.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35

>Like I said, scripture, not people claiming to follow the scripture.
Yeah, funny. I follow scripture. I love my enemies and do not take up a sword

>You still haven't manged to spin or disregard the passages of Paul and Jesus clearly telling you the opposite of what you believe.
Yeah, if you're going to state the question as 'spin' then I don't have to answer. By default even fi I answer you're accusing me of 'spin'


But I'll bite. Which passages specifically?

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said at the beginning that I didn't think spreading that message knowing it would cause conflict is evil because it needed to be done. It was a righteous message that needed to be spread, no matter the violence or conflict.

Basically the person you're quoting can't dismiss or spin that very direct quote from Jesus and Paul so they disregard it by bringing up verses describing the anti christ(because since the anti Christ will use government that makes all government evil despite what jesus said), how rulers at the time do not know the true wisdom of god (nobody does, so therefor nobody is just apparently), how one should worship jesus and not the devil, and of the eventual struggle against the anti christ.

Very, very poor reasoning to dismiss these valuable quotes that get to the heart of the argument.

I suggest you stop getting all your biblical positions from that website and anarchist/pacifists and get it from the bible instead. You're letting your political ideology influence your religious perception.

>Implying I was a pacifist before I read the bible
>implying I didn't totally believe intervention wars were justified

I am getting my political positions from the bible. Are you?

The earliest church fathers were pacifists. Were they magically influenced by anarchists that didn't exist yet?

www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html

I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.
—Tatian’s Address to the Greeks 11

www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm

An entire treatsy forbidding military service by one of the earliest Christian authors
One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.

Lactantius agreed: “A just man may not be a soldier” (Divine Institutes, 6.20).

And yeah, you got me to reply. I can take a lot of things. I can't take you implying that these aren't sound theological positions, as though I pulled 'love your enemies' out of my own butt.

Someone claiming to be a pacifist does not make them a pacifist, sorry.

Yet he advised his followers to be armed

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36)

He also committed violence himself

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).
"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).

And of coursed promised violent vengeance

"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords."
(Rev 19:11-16)

"and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels."
(2 Thessalonians 1:7)

Could you imagine a pacifist saying and doing any of these things? I can't.

>Luke 22:36
Did you not tread the passages immediately thereafter?

It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Luke 22:37-38

If he was telling his followers to literally be armed why is two swords enough for 12?

>Matthew 21:12

Actually it says nothing of Jesus violence against them, only that he drove them out. Dunno bout you but if a guy came in and started overturning tables I'd get out while the getting was good

www.academia.edu/1563662/Violence_Nonviolence_and_the_Temple_Incident_in_John_2_13-15

At that, the older interpretation, traditional of the passage is nonviolent

>Rev 19:11-16
The second coming is irrelevant to how He teaches us to live now. We'll be vegans in the second coming. Are you vegan?

Issiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isiah 11:7
The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.

We'll also not be married in the second coming, people are still going around getting married

>(2 Thessalonians 1:7)

Oh come now, even you must admit the blazing fire is obviously being poetic.

Why have any sword at all, if he indeed was a pacifist? Does every man have to be armed for self defense, or just a few? (police, military, ect)

I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.

Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?

So you think the second coming is poetic or do you think hes literal? Because I fail to see how that entire paragraph can be anything but literal.

He said why immediately thereafter
>It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

To fulfill the prophesy

>I defy you to go around flipping tables and smashing businesses and find one court or police officer who will say you weren't violent.

Destroying merchandise is actually great nonviolence resistance. you aren't harming individuals, but you are disrupting what you consider an unjust process. Whatever the authorities may say about it is irrelevant.

>Why would a pacifist god ever promise to come back and subjugate the world by force? Seems a bit inconsistent with his views, doesn't it?

Again, the second coming is irrelevant to now

But if you must

peacetheology.net/the-book-of-revelation/articles-on-revelation/biblical-apocalyptic-what-is-being-revealed/

Are you referring to the cut off ear? Why two swords then, why not one? And Jesus seemed pretty upset when his follower did attack, it didn't seem like he wanted it to happen, and it didn't really change anything, he had already healed many, many people before that.

The legal definition of violence

"the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.

What we do on earth is meant to prepare us for the afterlife and the second coming, is it not? Seems very strange that Jesus would be a pacifist yet advocate violence as the final solution to the worlds sin.

I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.

Explain to me first how two swords is enough for 12 people, then I'll explain why 2 swords is enough to fulfill the prophesy

>You're denying the opinions on those who have authority over those matters. Render unto Caesar.

So do you have no King except Caesar? Is your authority Caesar? Because my authority certainly isn't.

Once again your interpretation is rather shallow.

"Not only the complete misunderstanding of Christ's teaching, but also a complete unwillingness to understand it could have admitted that striking misinterpretation, according to which the words, "To Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's," signify the necessity of obeying Cæsar. In the first place, there is no mention there of obedience; in the second place, if Christ recognized the obligatoriness of paying tribute, and so of obedience, He would have said directly, "Yes, it should be paid;" but He says, "Give to Cæsar what is his, that is, the money, and give your life to God," and with these latter words He not only does not encourage any obedience to power, but, on the contrary, points out that in everything which belongs to God it is not right to obey Cæsar"
-Leo Tolstoy

>I don't want to read the explanation of a group with an obvious agenda, explain it to me yourself using scripture.

You can't arbitrarily restrict how I can answer your questions. We call that moving the goalpost. Many others have answered, that was just a convenient link.

I did, you only need two swords to defend a group, not everyone needs to be armed, which I think Jesus was trying to say. He's okay with defense, but hes not okay with being obsessed with unjustified conflict or war, therefor he didn't want to be walking around with an army, he was peaceful, but not a pacifist.

God himself said to respect the authority of those who rule over you, to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course. That is what Render unto Caesar means, give government what belongs to government, and give god what belongs to god.

You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward. Bu acknowledging that Caesar is owed taxes he is acknowledging his authority over the government of the land. That does not mean everything belongs to Caesar, but what does belong to Caesar is his.

And no, moving the goal posts isn't a clever defense that absolves you from defending your positions. I could spam 25 wikipedia links right now and not say a word, would you be moving the goal posts If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible? I'm arguing with you, not your links.

You think its what he's trying to say, despite the fact that he immediately said thereafter they needed swords to fulfill scripture? Odd. You seem to know more about what he's saying than Jesus himself does.

>You are twisting scripture to fit your own views. The verse is straightforward.

So straightforward that interpretations vary wildly.

> to the point that it doesn't conflict with your obedience to him of course

Precisely my point. If Caeser calls to me to fight in war, I must refuse. As it is written 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherent the Earth'. If Ceasar wishes to collect taxes from me, I must submit, since its highly unlikely I can refuse to pay taxes without resorting to the sword.

> If you insisted I be specific and comprehensible?
I am being specific and comprehensible. It's a full explanation to a pacifist interpretation of Revelation. As I said, at that, the second coming has nothing to do with now. you don't follow OT many laws do you? Likewise, revelation is not for today. It is for the hour that even Jesus doesn't know.

Point to where he says the only reason he advocated they bring "two" swords (still strange how they needed two when only one was needed to cut an ear off) is because he wanted peter to cut someones ear off.

Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days. I imagine there are some that when reading Jesus say "The ocean is blue" would state that Jesus thinks the ocean is yellow.

Meekness can easily mean having humility in oneself, it doesn't outright mean pacifist. God has always valued warriors.

But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence? And do you disavow the The Ten Commandments? Are you not bound by any law that Jesus himself did not say?

also they didn't bring two. Two happen to be there at the house

>Point to where he says the only reason he advocated they bring "two" swords (still strange how they needed two when only one was needed to cut an ear off) is because he wanted peter to cut someones ear off.

It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

He literally said it immediately thereafter sooooooo

>Even the most straightforward verse is debated these days.
I know. How funny. Love your enemies. Do not repay evil with evil. Blessed are the peacemakers [not warmakers]. So straight forward. 'BUT HE TOTALLY WASN'T A PACIFIST'

>But you're not answering my question, why would a god that values pacifism so much, according to you, preach that the world will end in violence?

Again, that's if you take Revelation literally.

But as I said, we are living under new laws. The OT was the rule of law and order. Now we are living under the rule of grace and nonviolence. What laws will come [again I point to the fact that we'll be vegetarians in the second coming] hold no weight to the laws we have now.

"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature."
—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI

The prophecy of the transgressors coming for him was being fulfilled, nothing in that implies that he wanted them to have swords to cut off peoples ears. If that was the point he would've just told them to get rid of the extra sword. Besides cutting off the ear of the guard had nothing to do with him being killed on the cross, it was just a miracle he performed, and he already performed many other miracles not having to do with prophecy.

I've already given you many passages that show he wasn't a pacifist so I can say the same to you.

Are you only bound by the laws that Jesus said?

What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it? Saying it doesn't apply to you at all after that is a bit hypocritical considering you're so angered by people denying the "fact" that he was pacifist.

>I've already given you many passages that show he wasn't a pacifist so I can say the same to you.

you've shown me faulty interpretations that completely isolate the passages.

>What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it

that the prophesy would be fulfilled.

I just gave you three passages in their complete form that addresses the entire argument and your response was to copy and paste a paragraph of someone quoting vague out of context supposedly anti government passages (i read all of them and none of them refute what was said) when they admittedly can't spin or disregard those verses.

So the law was destroyed when jesus died on the cross? The 10 commandments doesn't apply to you? So what does, just what Jesus said specifically? If jesus didn't mention giving false testimony could you give false testimony and not sin?

The link provides the entire essay. That was just the header. I highly doubt you read the whole essay.

They don't 'spin or disregard them'

But I've grown weary of this debate.

I cant see anyway they could mean anything else. If theres something that contradicts it present it, but not the verses you've already presented that supposedly contradict it because I've already addressed those.

I do not know what you define as a "serious beating", but your jawbone can be slapped the same as any other. Even still I take the fact that you literally turn the other cheek as a sign about forgiveness to an insult.

If your brother was in the middle of raping and murdering your sisters, and the only way to prevent their deaths would be to take his life, would you stop loving him simply because he needed to be stopped? You say you're a socialist so I'm assuming you support some type of police. If an officer has to take a mans life to save 10's or even hundreds, does that mean he hates the man?

Love can exist with duty.

I already said. The literal definition of typto means repeated beatings. Not some light slap. The original greek is a much more violent thrashing, not some 'slap'. how do you respond?

www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-greek-G5180-typto.html

The definition even explicitly mentions it would mean more than one blow.


In the case of hypothetical evil v. actual evil, go with the hypothetical evil.

Please, lets not pretend I asked you to copy and paste an entire essay, you could easily just copy and paste the passages that somehow interpret or change the meaning of those passages, like you did before. I'm thinking the reason you still don't is because you know that the reasons given are weak at best.

You've read all this stuff before yet you still can't find a reason why these verses are misinterpreted or invalid somehow?

You're flipping the argument towards me so you don't have to answer the question, but I'll bite. I have no problem with the love your enemy passage, it doesn't conflict with my views. I can love the sinner but that does not mean I have to let him prey on me and the weak. In fact it is my duty to confront evil. Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.

If I respond to an insult by destroying that sinner I wouldn't be just. However, evil cannot be allowed to subjugate the good, like in the days of Noah, which is why god has said that his ministers have the right to use their swords they bear to avenge evil.

You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.

It's really long. This isn't some simple explanation because you're right, they SEEM striaghtforward, even if they directly contradict was what said in the chapter immediately previously.

>Turning the other cheek refers to forgiveness. A slap on the cheek is not life threatening, it was more akin to an insult than anything.

Except the original greek does not talk about a slap, it talks about 'typto' which is a serious beating to your 'saigon' which is your jawbone.

/funny_pictures/5643507/Gop+teens/197#197

>You see nothing contradicts my view on the bible, the passages i presented do conflict with yours though.

Yeah, based upon your interpretation. Forgive me, but loving your enemies makes killing them mutually exclusive in my view.

I read the quote you gave me. If there was something else that somehow makes those verses invalid you should've said it. The fact that you still haven't said it makes me believe you don't know yourself, which really just hammers in my point.

Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?

That is putting your ideology ahead of the scripture and your religion.

I linked the entire essay
I can't copy paste an entire essay with a 400 character limit. But using essays is being 'incomprehensible' according to you.

>Why would you take a position opposite to the scripture without knowing why the passage is "wrong" or "misinterpreted"? Why would you look at the words of Paul and Jesus and immediately try to find an article the contradicts what they said, and without reading the article post an exert that you think may contradict what was said?

Not immediately. this is stuff I've been thinking about and reading for years. I've read all this stuff before. I'm not just googling it randomly.

Why would you read 'love your enemies' and immediately find a passage that makes you more comfortable? Why would you read 'if someone is beating your face do not repay with violence' and immediately search for an isolated verse to make is obsolete? That putting your comfort ahead of your religion.

Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.

Want more? Because I can spend all day cucking you into submission.

Except for the fact that jews were never slaves in Egypt. Exodus is false.

Are you using cuck ironically, or...?

>Learning your bible
Its from God.

It's from God . . . for the Israelites to follow.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" - Jeremiah 31:31-32

Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped, get your fucking information correct before you try to put down some bullshit.

Except for the 10 other verses openly advocating self defense and defending your people.

Get cucked faggot.

Amen.

Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft.
As for theluppijackal who doesn't understand a fucking thing nor does he look into the context
Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped

Exodus is old testament, as you know. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law.

You speak ill of my brother, friend.

You are correct. Peter was acting unwisely.

Jesus sent out groups of two to spread the word, earlier in the bible: “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” And described it as sheep among wolf. For this passage: There are two swords, yes. However, there are eleven apostles. (minus Judas) Jesus didn't say to gather more, but rather "it is enough"

Later after Jesus passes, his apostles are gathered and flogged for spreading the word. They didn't fight back. They considered themselves lucky to suffer shame in the name of Jesus. (Acts)

So then, I agree with Luppi still.

Regardless of your stance of the issue, God bless.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not break it. Christianity 101.


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Jesus fulfilled the law of the prophets, yes.

From Galatians:

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

The old law does not Everything goes through God. Not to speak against the law, for how the law defined sin is why it is written Jesus lived a perfect life. The law is fulfilled because of Jesus, and accepting Jesus means Christ works through us. From what I understand, we fulfill the law by obeying Jesus and accepting him as our Lord and Savior.

I can't believe you misinterpreted Matthew 26:52.

Literally means who lives violently, will die violently.

Wasn't that exactly my point?

No.

>Jesus was jewish
>Guns are expensive
>Legal guns means more guns sold
>More money for Gun Jew Jesus

The account is fake.

i agree with that ranking...hes pretty middle of the pack. hes not great, but hes not bad either..people are making him out to be worse than he actually is.