Blake can you show me where it says Christians should practice an eye for an eye please?
Blake this is what Jesus said about an eye for an eye which was actually Mosaic law used in the Israelite's justice system.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Why is it that board non-believers know more about the Bible than believers
Rhetorical question
So you were talking out of your ass. Next.
So you found the answer on your own.
In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.
Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.
I already knew the answer. I also knew that you would make no attempt to validate your bull per par.So you found the answer on your own.
Lol the ol Christian spin job.
In the next breath they'll talk of the evils of sharia law.
We both agree it's in the bible. You already validated it on your own.
Eh...no.
If you can get past the invisible sky buddy, those requirements should not be an issue.
Show me an example of a government that ever governed based on Christian principles, scripture.
Right now, Sharia law society vs any predominately Christian nation.. who's more socially tolerant?
Yeah, I'm not really afraid of that happening.
But hey, how many heads will get chopped off over this Indiana billboard:
Put a number on it, phobe.
England was very tolerant during the crusades huh.
Europe was governed for 1000 years by Christian royalty, aka 1%, colluding with corrupt Catholic church, aka, The Dark Ages where "enlightened thought and speech" were persecuted, tortured, burned, boiled in oil for being anti-Catholic.
So your position is so weak you have to compare present day Sharia law to the Templars.
England didn't have a theocratic government. They were a monarchy.
Just admit you were using more hyperbole, Blake. You all over whatever modi of legitimate statement you think you're making by using Boutons level hyperbole, and even moreso by continuing down this path of denial by showing a billboard or referencing 1000 years ago.
You don't need to go back 1000 years to find Church sanctioned events like slavery that today seems obviously immoral and unethical. But we aren't talking about 1000 years ago, we're talking about today. Were you comparing the Arabian penninsula of 1000 years ago to the Crusades in the OP? No, you were comparing modern day radical islam with the Catholic church, who hides a pedophile.
I'm asking why there isn't more of an outcry against catholics who hide their pedophiles.
I get that you really don't think sexual assault on kids is a big deal. I just don't get the rest of us in normal society who think it is.
So other than running your ing mouth about it online, what are you doing about it?
That's what everyone else is doing, not a ing thing.
I'm just asking out loud why there's no cry to do things to cathloics like travel ban them
Plenty of people here crying about Muslims tho. Plenty of people cheering the travel bans.
People like you....who are displaying their islamo fears here on a message board.
It's a sad type of funny
things losers say when theyve lost an argument on spurstalk
"who cares, its just a basketball message board"
"youre not doing anything about it irl so you must not care that much."
pathetic
triggered because no one takes you seriously
What's sad actually is that you have to disguise your hate for religion as care for children. Just looking at your thread history it's easy to tell your real beef is with religion in general not with anything else that's happening within that religion. Child abuse happens everywhere not just in religion.
I'm pretty sure no one here considers the Catholic priest abuse Scandal as not important however you use that angle just to get into a discussion about religion. Then if anyone points that out to you you try to equate that individual with someone who just doesn't care about children, probably because you're a sad pathetic sack of which is why your wife ed other people.
here's Repug misogynist Catholic Paul Ryan persecuting, demanding that s cover up in his chamber
Paul Ryan Denies Right to Bare Arms in House of Congress
Apparently women's bare shoulders are too scandalous for the Speaker of the House.
female journalists have reported that they’ve been turned away from the speaker’s lobby due to their bare shoulders —
a policy not shared by either the Senate or the White House.
they’ve been cracking down on the code, like with open-toed shoes,”
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/no-sleeveless-attire-congress
They s should show up in hijabs, head scarves, burqas to see how the misogynists react.
thanks for reminding me, i forgot about the third thing losers say
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
