Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am addressing his post. I'm addressing his post where he accuses me of arguing dishonestly, which is a blight on my character. Since when do we allow that of people who are supposed to be the example?
That little excuse no longer flies in my book.
I for one have explicitly said I don't condemn anyone for the choice they make in the heat of the crisis. But to refuse to think in a Jesus way when there is space and time to think things through, to refuse to develop the character to cope when the crisis comes, is sailing pretty close to the "unforgivable sin".Seems some live in Ivory towers.I think its not something that can be easily promoted or condemned unless we were put in that situation.
Imo its a conscience matter and the irony isnt lost on me that some are so black and white about this topic.
I for one have explicitly said I don't condemn anyone for the choice they make in the heat of the crisis. But to refuse to think in a Jesus way when there is space and time to think things through, to refuse to develop the character to cope when the crisis comes, is sailing pretty close to the "unforgivable sin".
I am sorry that you read my comment as blight on your character. I can assure that my intent is not and never has been to personally insult you. I regret that I may have caused you to feel that way.
It was a guess that turned out to be someone else's response. But yours was from Revelations - a symbolic account of Jesus' final wiping away of the evil he dealt with in principle on the cross. To think the way he will do that will be literally in the very opposite mode to the cross denies the cross itself.Think again before you make assumptions about people's positions.
It is hardly a certainty, given the context. And it is equally dishonest to treat it as one, as some have. So perhaps rather than attempting to dissuade me of my position, you could look deeper and realize what it is I'm saying.
You should get out more, then. I meet them all the time.
I never said it is contrary to Scripture. I said it is not in Scripture.
It most certainly can be supported. It's a negative claim. All there need be is no legitimate passages saying that Jesus is against violence, or passages where Jesus either condones or uses violence. Both situations exist to this point, therefore the claim must be true to this point. If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it. I've only asked for it multiple times in multiple ways from multiple people, after all.
No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.You dont get space and time ebia if someone bursts into your house.
The other options are never exhausted.Im not promoting a shoot first ask later mentality,but as a last resort when all options are exhausted.
The other options are never exhausted.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".
But his crozier is cross-shaped, not baton shaped.Jesus the Christ is called the Good Shepherd. He carries a staff for a reason. It is to protect those who would attempt to harm his sheep.
Can I ask where we find that a Shepherd's staff is meant as a defensive tool to fend off enemies of the sheep?
But his crozier is cross-shaped, not baton shaped.
Can you really not see that with every post you reduce Jesus to Caesar?
It's not just the criminals who are incompetent, but also those who resort to their way to stop them.
No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.
A (borrowed) story:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (well, Westminster Abbey is a fair way from here and it was a few decades ago), there was a big church service, in a packed Abbey Church with a lot of very imporant people in attendence. In walks a group of protestors. What they are protesting about has no direct connection to the service going on, but they are well known at the time for very quickly getting violent in their protest. Nobody is quite sure what to do and everybody sits there hoping someone else will deal with it. There are some police present, but dealing with it by force would be as risky as anything else. Until one not particularly senior clergyman gets up, walks over to the leader of the protestors and chats to him for a minute or so, then walks over to the person in charge of the service and talks to him, then goes up to the microphone and announces that the protestors will be given 3 minutes at the microphone to voice their protest and will then leave quietly. All then goes according to that plan.
That clergyman had regularly been seen before (and since) just randomly kneeling down talking to drunks in doorways and other acts of engagement with people on the edge of society, so that when the crisis came he (and only he out of a couple of thousand people) had the virtues to be able to deal with the situation.
You don't get that point, of instinctively being able to find the non-violent solution when the crisis comes if you regard violence as an acceptable option. Or if you don't do the rest of the characer building.
Editted to add: and yes it's risky. That comes with the Jesus territory, I'm afraid.
Can I ask where we find that a Shepherd's staff is meant as a defensive tool to fend off enemies of the sheep?
No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.
A (borrowed) story:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (well, Westminster Abbey is a fair way from here and it was a few decades ago), there was a big church service, in a packed Abbey Church with a lot of very imporant people in attendence. In walks a group of protestors. What they are protesting about has no direct connection to the service going on, but they are well known at the time for very quickly getting violent in their protest. Nobody is quite sure what to do and everybody sits there hoping someone else will deal with it. There are some police present, but dealing with it by force would be as risky as anything else. Until one not particularly senior clergyman gets up, walks over to the leader of the protestors and chats to him for a minute or so, then walks over to the person in charge of the service and talks to him, then goes up to the microphone and announces that the protestors will be given 3 minutes at the microphone to voice their protest and will then leave quietly. All then goes according to that plan.
That clergyman had regularly been seen before (and since) just randomly kneeling down talking to drunks in doorways and other acts of engagement with people on the edge of society, so that when the crisis came he (and only he out of a couple of thousand people) had the virtues to be able to deal with the situation.
You don't get that point, of instinctively being able to find the non-violent solution when the crisis comes if you regard violence as an acceptable option. Or if you don't do the rest of the characer building.
Editted to add: and yes it's risky. That comes with the Jesus territory, I'm afraid.
And yet you don't see that evil has won when you drop to using violence in response? That' you've spent the whole thread saying "violence is an acceptable way of dealing with evil"?the only one here who finds violence an acceptable option is the one planning evil from the gitgo.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?