Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Is Violence the Answer?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 5, 2012
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2012-08-05 12:16:24 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 2760
Comments: 12
Can violence be the answer to some of our problems. Our government says violence is the answer. They do. It took violence to form our nation in the Revolutionary war. Good old Abe Lincoln said violence is the answer to states want autonomy from the Federal government. Fast forward to our day. They said violence is the answer in Afghanistan. They said it is again in Iraq. Then we got a new president. He said violence in the answer in Libya. He says violence is the answer in Yemen. They say violence might be the answer in Syria and Iran. He has claimed that unleashing violence through unmanned drones is the answer. Liberal statists have said for years that violence is the answer for unwanted babies. So do you peace loving Americans out there think violence is or can be the answer?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
But...but...That's "a woman's choice" *spit*
When did Americans get their balls stolen? America and Americans have historically been people of ACTION. "Violence" is part of life. "Violence" certainly IS the answer to many situations. It's kind of a stupid question unless it is aimed at debunking the libTURD nonsense that has been used to neuter our population in the indoctrination centers, uh I mean skools for the last generation or so. We do love peace. It's just that we have to make it peaceful by violence sometimes. Maybe you'd let your wife be assaulted on the street by strangers? Maybe you'd stand by while monsters hurt your children? Maybe you'd run away if confronted by violence? Maybe you really aren't a traditional AMERICAN? Maybe YOU need the state to take care of you? So ... ? Fuck YES violence is the answer to VIOLENCE aimed at us and ours. (btw Jesus does approve, ie. see CRUSADES.)
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Do you really believe that?
. Am I usually known to say things that I don't believe? Or are you just totally IGNORANT of WHY there were CRUSADES?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Jesus certainly did Stone. Luke 22:36 KJV "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." But hey it was only at the "last supper" and it only came from his own mouth, so obviously it's minor passage eh Stone? (You don't even know what "to turn the other cheek" really means do you? You think that it means to passively submit to VIOLENCE/FORCE don't you milquetoast?)
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
I am pretty ignorant on the subject. I know they were catholic crusades. I know Catholics changed the 10 commandments. I know Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. I also know that there certainly is a time for war.
You and your fellow de balled PC milquetoast "Christians" who love to use this passage as an excuse to be floor mats for anybody who gets physical with you are IGNORANT fools. (I hate using this source, but it's correct and the best blurb about this that I could find in five minutes.) ..... "Interpretations This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subjected to both literal and figurative interpretations. See also Sermon on the Mount#Interpretation. Straightforward interpretation Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, this has led some into Christian anarchism, including the notable Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Literal interpretation A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[3] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[4] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[5] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off his back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy: 10 ¶ When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. 11 Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee. 12 And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge: 13 In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God. —Deuteronomy 24:10–13 KJV By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. —Genesis 9:20–23 KJV The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[6] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[7] Righteous personal conduct interpretation There is a third school of thought in regard to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance." References 1 Luke 16:17 - This is a different location than the sermon on the mount of Matthew. 2 From the Grube translation of Crito found in Plato's Five Dialogues revised by Cooper. 3 Walter Wink. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. 4 David Daube. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. 5 John L. Berquist. Controlling Corporeality. 7 Th. Mommsen. Codex Theodosianus 8:5:1. 8 Michael Avi-Yonah. The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_othe r_cheek ..... So, even stupid people can see that "to turn the other cheek" means NOTHING like what it is promoted in the secular world of today or by the main stream so called religious establishment says it means. Even YOU should be able to see that Stone. (How about the VIOLENCE that you do and promote against HOMOSEXUALS Stone? Or do you consider yourself "special" so that the rules don't apply to you?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
I also know that there certainly is a time for war. . islam is why the CRUSADES happened. Mainly. islam took all of northern Africa which had been CHRISTIAN for almost a thousand years by the sword. Then islam took the Levant, by the sword. Then islam started fucking with the CHRISTIAN pilgrim business. Which was a very important SECULAR and RELIGIOUS business. islam started destroying the pilgrims and pilgrimage. That's when On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, Pope Urban II called for a crusade to help the Byzantines and to free the city of Jerusalem. The CRUSADES were WARS of DEFENSE by CHRISTIANS AGAINST islam. islam was the FIRST aggressor. islam did what it has ALWAYS does, made you submit or FIGHT. CHRISTIANITY FOUGHT. Jesus completely APPROVES fighting SATAN. Want to tell me how PC "cHRISTIANS" FIGHT a WAR if JESUS wants his flock to be floor mats to any violence? Kinda siding with Tolstoy aren't you?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Luke 22:35-38: Then Jesus asked [his disciples], “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 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. 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.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (NIV) Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
You are kind of making up my position.
Don't play at being "coy". You haven't stated your position on the matter, (other than by implication). I asked you a very simple question about what YOU make of it, of the THREE mentioned possibilities in the supporting article I posted to you. This isn't rocket science. CHRISTIANITY isn't gnostic in ANY way. But it helps if you KNOW what CHRISTIANITY, not the secular world, SAYS ABOUT BEING CHRISTIAN. People like you let the bloody heathens define "cHRISTIANITY". People like me DON'T. SUE me.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Good post, Dawg.
Liberal statists have said for years that violence is the answer for unwanted babies.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Can violence be the answer to some of our problems.
#3. To: Mad Dog (#2)
(btw Jesus does approve, ie. see CRUSADES.)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#6. To: Mad Dog (#4)
Or are you just totally IGNORANT of WHY there were CRUSADES?
#7. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Stone you don't even know what the term "turn the other cheek" means do you?
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
I am pretty ignorant on the subject. I know they were catholic crusades. I know Catholics changed the 10 commandments. I know Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Matt. 10:34
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#10. To: Mad Dog (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
You are kind of making up my position.
#12. To: Mad Dog (#8)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]