When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.
The Bible does not condemn self defense
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Because Im not Jewish, and I've never studied much Greek.
Whoops you got that the wrong way round. You should know it because you presumably are a Xtian. Learn your history.
Aha, now you know how we feel with your posts!
You don't think you can learn about the what the Bible is supposed to be teaching from someone who doesn't believe in the Bible as the word of God?
Phil Bradley:
"Basic human instinct causes us to protect ourselves when threatened. This
self-preservation is built-in. You can control it to a point, but you cannot
remove it (nor should you even want to). Self-preservation is why we do not
stand in front of a bullet train or oncoming traffic. It is why we know that
when a rattlesnake is angry, we better watch where we step. It is why we do not
jump off of buildings and pretend that we can fly.
Self-preservation keeps you from wandering around aimlessly, blinded to the
dangers around you. And self-defense goes hand-in-hand with self-preservation.
Protection of ourselves, our families and our communities is simply a part of
us, but by no means is self-defense the same as violence. They are different
emotions, having nothing to do with each other.
In the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38) is one of the most misunderstood
and misquoted verses of the Bible. A lot of people think that it means a license
to take matters into their own hands. However, it actually refers to
restitution.
If someone steals something from you, they are to pay it back with like kind.
If they injure you, they are to make amends. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth.
The New Testament, however, changes this.
Instead of everything coming down to the wrongdoer and his/her
responsibilities, Jesus tells us that it all comes down to us. We are to forgive
those that wrong us and we are to “turn the other cheek.” The new law does not
release the wrongdoer from blame; rather, Jesus is teaching us that forgiveness
and love starts with us.
Jesus is certainly not condoning retribution or violence, nor is He saying
that it is ok for someone to do something wrong to us because they will get off
Scott free. Self-defense is completely different from that.
If someone were to break into your home, what would you do? Would you stand
idly by and watch these attackers accost your family, doing nothing to stop
them? Of course not. You would do something to intervene because it is your
family. You love them and you do not want harm to come to them.
As theologians Dr J.P.Moreland and Dr Norman Geisler stated
it:
To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow
a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to
children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not
resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as
evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and
children against a violent intruder fails them morally.
Should a situation like this occur, which would you prefer: having a reliable
skill for defending yourself and your family, or flailing about, not knowing
what to do? Without trained, reliable skills, you take a chance, but that chance
can become a grave situation. By knowing what to do and how to do it, you
increase your odds of protecting your family and keeping them safe.
The Bible teaches us about loving God and accepting Jesus as our personal
Savior, and it also teaches us about loving our neighbors as ourselves. Does
this sound like violence and self-defense are the same? It does not to me. Did
Jesus teach us that we should stand idly by and allow evil to run rampant? Of
course not. He said to trust Him with all things, and we most certainly do. But
many have taken that to mean that we are just mindless robots incapable of any
action."
Phil Bradley
Arizona Wing Chun Association
used with permission
htttp://www.awcaonline.com
"Basic human instinct causes us to protect ourselves when threatened. This
self-preservation is built-in. You can control it to a point, but you cannot
remove it (nor should you even want to). Self-preservation is why we do not
stand in front of a bullet train or oncoming traffic. It is why we know that
when a rattlesnake is angry, we better watch where we step. It is why we do not
jump off of buildings and pretend that we can fly.
Self-preservation keeps you from wandering around aimlessly, blinded to the
dangers around you. And self-defense goes hand-in-hand with self-preservation.
Protection of ourselves, our families and our communities is simply a part of
us, but by no means is self-defense the same as violence. They are different
emotions, having nothing to do with each other.
In the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38) is one of the most misunderstood
and misquoted verses of the Bible. A lot of people think that it means a license
to take matters into their own hands. However, it actually refers to
restitution.
If someone steals something from you, they are to pay it back with like kind.
If they injure you, they are to make amends. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth.
The New Testament, however, changes this.
Instead of everything coming down to the wrongdoer and his/her
responsibilities, Jesus tells us that it all comes down to us. We are to forgive
those that wrong us and we are to “turn the other cheek.” The new law does not
release the wrongdoer from blame; rather, Jesus is teaching us that forgiveness
and love starts with us.
Jesus is certainly not condoning retribution or violence, nor is He saying
that it is ok for someone to do something wrong to us because they will get off
Scott free. Self-defense is completely different from that.
If someone were to break into your home, what would you do? Would you stand
idly by and watch these attackers accost your family, doing nothing to stop
them? Of course not. You would do something to intervene because it is your
family. You love them and you do not want harm to come to them.
As theologians Dr J.P.Moreland and Dr Norman Geisler stated
it:
To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow
a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to
children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not
resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as
evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and
children against a violent intruder fails them morally.
Should a situation like this occur, which would you prefer: having a reliable
skill for defending yourself and your family, or flailing about, not knowing
what to do? Without trained, reliable skills, you take a chance, but that chance
can become a grave situation. By knowing what to do and how to do it, you
increase your odds of protecting your family and keeping them safe.
The Bible teaches us about loving God and accepting Jesus as our personal
Savior, and it also teaches us about loving our neighbors as ourselves. Does
this sound like violence and self-defense are the same? It does not to me. Did
Jesus teach us that we should stand idly by and allow evil to run rampant? Of
course not. He said to trust Him with all things, and we most certainly do. But
many have taken that to mean that we are just mindless robots incapable of any
action."
Phil Bradley
Arizona Wing Chun Association
used with permission
htttp://www.awcaonline.com
If anyone is offended by witty, satirical comments on scpiture, please do not open this link.
For others, I think it's humorous and well written, in a modern sort of way.
The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses Cracked.com
For others, I think it's humorous and well written, in a modern sort of way.
The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses Cracked.com
Jewish thought on 'an eye for an eye.'
The Jewish Legal System
Question: My non-Jewish friends tell me that they think Judaism is wrong because it teaches one that an eye for an eye is the right way instead of turning the other cheek. Are they correct in their assessment of the Jewish religion? Is eye for an eye a part of Judaism and beliefs?
Answer: The quote, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” comes from our Torah, our bible. It may be found in Leviticus 24:20. This, however, does not mean that if someone cut off your hand then we should cut off his hand, G-d forbid. This verse has been misinterpreted by Christians and Muslims for centuries. All of our commentaries tell us that what it means is if someone causes you to lose the use of your hand in an accident or a similar case, then that person owes you financial damages up to the value of your lost limb. So if you were a professional arm wrestler and someone caused you to lose your arm wrestling hand then they might owe you the value of that hand including your lost wages, etc. None of the Jewish commentaries teach us to cut off the hand of the one who caused the loss. It simply is a lie if someone tells you that this is the Jewish opinion.
The Jewish Legal System
Question: My non-Jewish friends tell me that they think Judaism is wrong because it teaches one that an eye for an eye is the right way instead of turning the other cheek. Are they correct in their assessment of the Jewish religion? Is eye for an eye a part of Judaism and beliefs?
Answer: The quote, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” comes from our Torah, our bible. It may be found in Leviticus 24:20. This, however, does not mean that if someone cut off your hand then we should cut off his hand, G-d forbid. This verse has been misinterpreted by Christians and Muslims for centuries. All of our commentaries tell us that what it means is if someone causes you to lose the use of your hand in an accident or a similar case, then that person owes you financial damages up to the value of your lost limb. So if you were a professional arm wrestler and someone caused you to lose your arm wrestling hand then they might owe you the value of that hand including your lost wages, etc. None of the Jewish commentaries teach us to cut off the hand of the one who caused the loss. It simply is a lie if someone tells you that this is the Jewish opinion.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Oooh, boy.
Here's the scripture:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38-42,KJV
Where it's part of the Sermon on the Mount-in Luke, it's part of the injunction to "love your enemies." This is important: at that time, "your enemies," for Jesus's principally Hebrew audience, were the Romans.
It's said by some that at that time, striking those perceived to be of a lower class was done with the back of the hand to assert authority-thus, the Romans would strike Hebrews with the back of the hand- and used their left hand for "unclean purposes," that is to say, to wipe their asses....if they were confronted by a Hebrew who turned their cheek, they were confounded: presented with a dilemma whereby they could strike with their open hand or fist:treating the Hebrew as an equal-in fact, the entire Sermon on the Mount is somewhat politically subversive in nature.
It also-since it's coupled with the verse from Deuteronomy about "an eye for an eye"-could be an injunction against vengeance, rather than self-defense. People used the verse from Deuteronomy to justify vengeance-thus the "you have heard it said, rather than the more conventional, "it is written" when referencing scripture.
It's also worth noting (for those who seem to think it's some sort of pacifist statement) that Jesus doesn't say to stand there and keep turning your cheek-he's pretty specific about the act.
Lastly, we have to note that Jesus told his followers this:
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
Amazing to me how some people "read" the Bible, without actually READING the Bible.
Yeah but the sword thing kind of fell apart. Dude got his ear cut off and Jesus put it back. So it is not really the take arms quote people use it as.
Also the live by the sword die by the sword context.
The restored ear was a political addition, meant to appease Roman oppression.....whenever people ask, " What would Jesus do? I always default to: turn over a bunch of tables, and hit everyone im sighth with a whip.
And that makes IS look positively benevolent.
Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13-19
Masturbation: Leviticus 15:16
Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28
So explain how your literalism doesn't include THESE literal statements...
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Have you seen the term Xmas as a shorthand for Christmas? Same thing.
Well you've made it clear that you don't believe in the Bible. While you certainly have every right to believe or not believe whatever you want, since you've chosen to not believe in the Bible I am going to ignore any further posts of yours in this thread.
So you aren't going to respond to Dirty Dog so I will post the relevant passages for your comment. I've gone out of my way to find the King James version so I look forward to your insight as to how these passages sit in today's world.
Leviticus 11:13-19 King James Version (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Leviticus 15:16-19 King James Version (KJV)
16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 19:28 King James Version (KJV)
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition
Gnarlie
Master of Arts
That's not a very open minded approach.
Bingo.
Of course you can learn from those who believe different things than you. I am not religious, but I knew what a Xtian was. I'm also aware of the scripture DD is referring to. I visited 3 mosques yesterday, which was really an enlightening experience. I am still not religious, but my mind is open to learning. I guess that's the difference between us.
That's no excuse for poor general knowledge. Maybe get out more?
^This. PG, you believe there is nothing to learn from someone who does not believe the same as you do. Not just concerning the Bible, but in general. That's not a sensible philosophy, and your train wreck posting style and lack of general world awareness demonstrate its results perfectly.
Ignore this if you like [emoji6]
Orange Lightning
Purple Belt
oftheherd1
Senior Master
No, it wasn't. There are any number of religions that predate both the Hebrew and Greek languages. So for the third time... WHICH bible?
Yeah, that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense, as you may or may not know. There were more than 8 translators of the King James Version. There were six companies, each of whom submitted their completed translations to the other companies for comment and discussion if needed. The final translations were submitted to the clergy at large for comments/discussions. Indeed there are no originals known. But "hundreds of years" needs some clarification. It seems commonly believed that from AD 1 to AD 90, there were some apostles still alive, and perhaps writing what we now accept as scripture. Even the Catholic church was showing Alexandrian translations in the 4th century, at the request of Constantine. In the Antiocan tradition, there are indeed some 8000 or more sources. Many are fragmentary. A few are sermon notes quoting verses not otherwise known. All were used to produce what were believed to be the actual words God intended to be in His Bible. Most do agree. Where they don't the translators looked at the verses themselves, and the number that stated things one way versus those fewer that stated things another way, to make their decision. Those that were deemed authentic were used by Desiderius Erasmus to make a Greek/Latin New Testament. That was used by both Luther and Tyndale, as well as others, including the KJV translating committee. And they did also use previous English versions. The last paragraph is simply untruthful nonsense written to confuse people by attempting to blend some facts in such a way as to produce what are hoped to be acceptable contradictions.
You don't have to believe what I say, but if you want to dispute it, you should probably use something besides the above. Also, to say there are religions that predate Christianity has nothing to do with versions of the Bible. In English, the word Bible in a religious sense, is most commonly used only for those writings that call themselves the words of God.
And for what it is worth, whether or not you believe is up to you. I am one who believes the King James Version is the only word of God in English. If you or anyone else does not, so be it. We all must have our beliefs tested at our deaths. But in my belief of what the Bible says, when we die, there is no way to change the outcome. Again, if you don't believe that, so be it. The point being, I believe what I believe. Some things about the KJV are historical fact, and some things I take on faith. I will not be swayed otherwise. Perhaps you and other will not be swayed in your believes either. Again, so be it.
I am curious though how someone can believe the KJV is exactly the word of G-d when in what you call the Old Testament there are certainly differences which change the meaning of certain things from the original Hebrew/Aramaic versions. Surely you would take what is written in the original? I wouldn't say anything about the 'New Testament' because obviously there is no 'original' dating from the times of the ancient Israelites. I'm also curious about how certain things are taken to mean something other than how it was meant, ie the Xtians taking the 'eye for an eye' as meaning something other than it was originally meant by the people who actually wrote that. People forget I think that the people for whom the original was written and who used it in 'Biblical' times still do.
If I as a non American started lecturing American on their Constitution telling them it meant something else, that it didn't mean what they thought it did and generally translating it as I wanted as well as adding to it there would be a huge uproar so why do Xtians insist on doing that with what they call the Old Testament?
If I as a non American started lecturing American on their Constitution telling them it meant something else, that it didn't mean what they thought it did and generally translating it as I wanted as well as adding to it there would be a huge uproar so why do Xtians insist on doing that with what they call the Old Testament?
oftheherd1
Senior Master
If bats are fowls, what are the fowls in verse 11:20 which you seem to have declined to mention?
Lev 15:16 I don't think it necessarily has to be masturbation. Could it also refer to a nocturnal emission?
Lev 19:28 first refers to the custom by some cultures of cutting oneself with knife to exhibit grief or respect for a deceased. The next clause may be referring to the same thing, making marks on the body for the same reason. I can't positively say that is so.
I would be interested if Tez3 can better comment on the meanings of those three verses or passages.
But as a Christian, it is of no consequence to me. Murder is a sin, theft is a sin, assault is a sin, and there are many more. But as a Christian, I can and do seek forgiveness for my sins from God. My belief in what the Bible says, tells me that as a saved person, I am forgiven when I ask for forgiveness.
Similar threads
