• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

General Debate on Religion

DarkNoon said:
I'm just curious and want to hear from some of our more spiritual religious educated members or religious educators.

It is probably the most widely know phrase by every man on earth even if he or she is not religious or believes in any faith. The phase "eye for an eye".

Do you all generally believe this was not the word of god but of some "dude" way back when adding his own personal beliefs to scripture or the bible?

Because "eye for an eye" does seem to contradict other texts or scriptures of "gods words". Even though I am not religious or have any real structural sound faith I lived to these words in my career.

But instead of eye for an eye I believe taking ones heart (death) for an eye if you attack or hurt Americans (my people). Which ties into being prideful which is also from my understanding a sin as well.

Anyways not really looking for a response on pride. But rather the ideological religious phase "eye for an eye".
Click to expand...
Old Testament laid out how we should live in community. Eye for an eye may have been a caution to the Israelites... as you do unto others, shall it be done unto you. I’m not a religious scholar, but this kind of seems to be a rational take.

New Testament,Christ commands us to love others as we love ourselves. Our daily interactions with others show how much we love
ourselves.....or don’t.

Pride can be a good thing. Taking pride in one’s work can be a good thing,if not taken to the extreme. Pride taken to the extreme can be a dangerous place.

My nickels worth.
 
DarkNoon said:
I'm just curious and want to hear from some of our more spiritual religious educated members or religious educators.

It is probably the most widely know phrase by every man on earth even if he or she is not religious or believes in any faith. The phase "eye for an eye".

Do you all generally believe this was not the word of god but of some "dude" way back when adding his own personal beliefs to scripture or the bible?

Because "eye for an eye" does seem to contradict other texts or scriptures of "gods words". Even though I am not religious or have any real structural sound faith I lived to these words in my career.

But instead of eye for an eye I believe taking ones heart (death) for an eye if you attack or hurt Americans (my people). Which ties into being prideful which is also from my understanding a sin as well.

Anyways not really looking for a response on pride. But rather the ideological religious phase "eye for an eye".
Click to expand...
I understand that concern and a number of well-educated individuals have answered this already.
Under this Old Testament (some would consider Torah) concept of sin and war is very complex, just as defending one's family from crime is complex.
But under the Christian concepts, Jesus's teaching is most vital when he was being captured in the Garden of Gethsemane, as Peter takes out a sword to defend Jesus and reportedly cuts of the ear of a Roman soldier, and Jesus commands Peter: "Put back your sword, for those who take up the sword will surely perish by the sword." (Matthew 26: 47-56) and according to Luke "Stop! No more of this!" (Luke 22:51).

We don't need to debate the nuance of what Jesus meant in his call for a "new commandment" to "love one another" to understand what the Christian message is directly from Jesus on violence and war. What some would view as "passivity" or "weakness" is what others would view as Christian nonviolence.

And here in the current dystopian age, almost 10 days from Christmas Day, we have those who sell Christmas Tree ornaments that honor nuclear bombs.
So in the Christian faith, there is real value in respecting the humility that we are all poor sinners who need salvation, but also in the concept that we must put our swords away. Claiming that we are seeking a Christian life and consciously pursuing violence is contemptuous to Jesus' teaching in my opinion.

Gethsemane-25.jpg
 
Last edited:
REALHumanRights said:
I understand that concern and a number of well-educated individuals have answered this already.
Under this Old Testament (some would consider Torah) concept of sin and war is very complex, just as defending one's family from crime is complex.
But under the Christian concepts, Jesus's teaching is most vital when he was being captured in the Garden of Gethsemane, as Peter takes out a sword to defend Jesus and reportedly cuts of the ear of a Roman soldier, and Jesus commands Peter: "Put back your sword, for those who take up the sword will surely perish by the sword." (Matthew 26: 47-56) and according to Luke "Stop! No more of this!" (Luke 22:51).

We don't need to debate the nuance of what Jesus meant in his call for a "new commandment" to "love one another" to understand what the Christian message is directly from Jesus on violence and war. What some would view as "passivity" or "weakness" is what others would view as Christian nonviolence.

And here in the current dystopian age, almost 10 days from Christmas Day, we have those who sell Christmas Tree ornaments that honor nuclear bombs.
So in the Christian faith, there is real value in respecting the humility that we are all poor sinners who need salvation, but also in the concept that we must put our swords away. Claiming that we are seeking a Christian life and consciously pursuing violence is contemptuous to Jesus' teaching in my opinion.

View attachment 3258
Click to expand...
Is self defense or defense of someone being violently attacked contemptuous?
 
Seriously said:
Is self defense or defense of someone being violently attacked contemptuous?
Click to expand...
For those in the Christian faith, I believe this is a question for Jesus.
His words when he was attacked and others sought to defend him, even to crucify him, are his words.

The beliefs that violence are the answer to our problems is clearly not what Jesus instructed. His words, not mine.
 
REALHumanRights said:
For those in the Christian faith, I believe this is a question for Jesus.
His words when he was attacked and others sought to defend him, even to crucify him, are his words.

The beliefs that violence are the answer to our problems is clearly not what Jesus instructed. His words, not mine.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn’t call an armed police officer if you or your family are being attacked?
They carry firearms and they will use them if needed.
I’m not raising this to set you up. But it is a legitimate question. IF non-violence is taught in all forms. Then there is no justification for civil or national defense at any level.

IF a person chooses to adopt that as their personal calling that’s completely acceptable and many have. But it would also be hypocritical I think then to rely on any form physical defense “employment of violence” irregardless be it a firearm, club, whip or hand to hand to defend themselves physically. As well as calling the state or civil authority to stand in their place.

A person is getting raped or mercilessly beaten. You have a choice after calling for police, to watch passively and strongly admonishing them to stop. Or you violently step in and stop them. Force is measured in degrees of violence, from a shove in the chest to a bullet to the chest.

Or you stand by and do nothing

What did Jesus carry in his hand when he went into the temple and he cleared the money changers out.
A whip, a whip is violent is it not. Using one today would easily get you arrested.

There are appropriate levels of violence to be applied. The difficulty is in recognizing when and how much, when confronted with violence.
 
Seriously said:
So you wouldn’t call an armed police officer if you or your family are being attacked?
They carry firearms and they will use them if needed.
I’m not raising this to set you up. But it is a legitimate question. IF non-violence is taught in all forms. Then there is no justification for civil or national defense at any level.

IF a person chooses to adopt that as their personal calling that’s completely acceptable and many have. But it would also be hypocritical I think then to rely on any form physical defense “employment of violence” irregardless be it a firearm, club, whip or hand to hand to defend themselves physically. As well as calling the state or civil authority to stand in their place.

A person is getting raped or mercilessly beaten. You have a choice after calling for police, to watch passively and strongly admonishing them to stop. Or you violently step in and stop them. Force is measured in degrees of violence, from a shove in the chest to a bullet to the chest.

Or you stand by and do nothing

What did Jesus carry in his hand when he went into the temple and he cleared the money changers out.
A whip, a whip is violent is it not. Using one today would easily get you arrested.

There are appropriate levels of violence to be applied. The difficulty is in recognizing when and how much, when confronted with violence.
Click to expand...
I agree with your concern. I was answering your question.
You are advocating a position. Those are two different issues.
And use of defense and nonviolence versus mortal weapons, wars, and of course the current advocacy of nuclear war are very different than clearing the temple of sinning money-changers.
  • 100 percent stand by my own advocacy that: "So in the Christian faith, there is real value in respecting the humility that we are all poor sinners who need salvation, but also in the concept that we must put our swords away. Claiming that we are seeking a Christian life and consciously pursuing violence is contemptuous to Jesus' teaching in my opinion."
  • The answer to most problems in today's society are in fact "a bullet to the chest." And that is the value set being taught. In the abandoned dystopia of Chicago, USA, 25 gunned down last weekend, including 14-year-old child, 6 killed. And of course, no one cares. There are no calls for the "glory" of the persecuted people in Chicago, no fundraising campaigns for children being regularly gunned down in Chicago, USA. They are in the wrong country. No doubt some would consider them invisible because of the race of most the victims. But that is not Christian thinking.
  • The Christian activist community is very vocal about abortion. But regarding ongoing murder, shooting, and violence against children and others, it is just really time to change the subject and sing a hymn.
  • The Christian activist community is very vocal about Paul's concerns about sexual immorality. But the human immorality of calls for nuclear war and escalation for nuclear war is just time to change the subject and let us go back and read a Psalm from 2000 years ago.
  • As this is a general debate on religion, and as the general question about violence and the Christian religion is asked, in good conscience I could not simply turn the page and not remark, when this is a massive problem for the Christian religion, as it is for the entire world.
  • We can always "justify" violence. If only those in the Christian community found a portion of that time and energy to justify nonviolence, as is actually instructed by Jesus Christ himself.
 
Last edited:
REALHumanRights said:
I agree with your concern. I was answering your question.
You are advocating a position. Those are two different issues.
And use of defense and nonviolence versus mortal weapons, wars, and of course the current advocacy of nuclear war are very different than clearing the temple of sinning money-changers.
  • 100 percent stand by my own advocacy that: "So in the Christian faith, there is real value in respecting the humility that we are all poor sinners who need salvation, but also in the concept that we must put our swords away. Claiming that we are seeking a Christian life and consciously pursuing violence is contemptuous to Jesus' teaching in my opinion."
  • The answer to most problems in today's society are in fact "a bullet to the chest." And that is the value set being taught. In the abandoned dystopia of Chicago, USA, 25 gunned down last weekend, including 14-year-old child, 6 killed. And of course, no one cares. There are no calls for the "glory" of the persecuted people in Chicago, no fundraising campaigns for children being regularly gunned down in Chicago, USA. They are in the wrong country. No doubt some would consider them invisible because of the race of most the victims. But that is not Christian thinking.
  • The Christian activist community is very vocal about abortion. But regarding ongoing murder, shooting, and violence against children and others, it is just really time to change the subject and sing a hymn.
  • The Christian activist community is very vocal about Paul's concerns about sexual immorality. But the human immorality of calls for nuclear war and escalation for nuclear war is just time to change the subject and let us go back and read a Psalm from 2000 years ago.
  • As this is a general debate on religion, and as the general question about violence and the Christian religion is asked, in good conscience I could not simply turn the page and not remark, when this is a massive problem for the Christian religion, as it is for the entire world.
  • We can always "justify" violence. If only those in the Christian community found a portion of that time and energy to justify nonviolence, as is actually instructed by Jesus Christ himself.
Click to expand...
Food for thought,right there.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Then I guess we're not good, because Jesus said to and spread the Good News, and that is what I will do.
Click to expand...
I should of phased better. Anyone pushing it on me publicly. Like groups on the corner of a street yelling "I'm going to hell" if I don't do as they say. Another prime example is knocking on my door like a door to door salesman, or pushing it on me outside the grocery store as a I exist. Understand what I am implying?

If your a freind or acquaintance I know and not some random stranger that is entirely different.
 
Saguenay said:
When I see that the Italian mafia is religious. I know several believers and I find that I am a better person than them in general. They will have eternal life, not me!

When an American President declares: God save America!
Why would God only protect America?
Click to expand...
Your a better person based upon whos definition? Who’s judgement, yours?
I don’t mean that as an attack of you personally, but that’s a pretty subjective measurement. But we all do it but that’s not the question.
Do we think God actually wanted a relationship with a bunch of children tattling on each other.

What is the nature of friendship or love of another. Still caring about them and wanting to be a friend when they fail themselves, or you.
That’s the nature of grace; they love you when you fail and you love them when you don’t really understand what their doing.

And saying God Bless America or Canada is not proclaiming a nature or position of superiority over another. I know often it is received as some posturing of we’re better than others so of course God will bless us.

But in its true meaning It is a request. A supplication
there is nothing ever wrong with asking for help

As a non-believer make sure you do not exert the same kind of effort or judgement against believers. As unfortunately the church has in history exerted against supposed non-believers.
It was and is a no win course of action for both.
It’s a relationship not a business contract or international treaty or worse yet a grade.
 
Seriously said:
And saying God Bless America or Canada is not proclaiming a nature or position of superiority over another. I know often it is received as some posturing of we’re better than others so of course God will bless us.

But in its true meaning It is a request. A supplication
there is nothing ever wrong with asking for help
Click to expand...
I am not in anyway being facetious. But I don't think the large majority sees it that way...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top