Sure there are posters who will hear the truth. A more importent question is will you hear it? One of the great things about the SDMB is the sharing of ideas and viewpoints. There’s a great opportunity to learn something about how others view things and to refine your own views and methods of communication. In order to do that you need to listen and seriously consider the views of others. If others are offering constructive criticism you might give it consideration unless you’re just too attached to that misunderstood purveyor of truth image.
Christians are supposed to follow Christ’s example, yes. Christians are *not *supposed to let evil occur to others if they can do something to prevent it. Often resisting evil has unpleasant earthly consequences for the conscientious objector, but it is in choosing to resist evil and promote good on earth for others that Christians would be doing as Christ has told people to. The biblical quote about turning the other cheek when an evil person hits one on one cheek suggests to me that a Christian are not supposed to resist evil merely because it hurts that individual Christian.
As for the “forsake their lives” bit, Christians are supposed to value eternal life more than earthly life, but not be suicidal or disdainful of the gift of life on earth. Christians are supposed to be willing to give up their lives for the good of others, and not be attached to the pleasures of earthly life so much that they cannot use their lives for the betterment of others. Christians believe that Christ submitted to execution so that he could die as a blameless sacrifice on their behalf and thereby redeem them from the otherwise inevitable consequence of their sinfulness, not because submitting to execution per se is a good thing to do.
Trusting in the next world does not mean ignoring this world. A true Christian (by faith and works) would improve the world at least in small ways by what he did in his life on earth.
Ostensible Lutheran checking in. Let’s see what the cranky old Kr…I mean, fine German gentleman, really had to say about it before I join the rest of you in putting words in his mouth:
So what I’m seeing is that, yes, you are justified by faith, though, being an imperfect human, you will still screw up. The Catholic Church understands this, too; at the end of Confession the priest tells you to, “Go, and sin no more,” but he’s still waiting in the confessional next Saturday. Luther says that you are not justified by your works but, if your faith is true, the good works will follow. That’s another thing with which the Mother Church would have no difficulty. In addition, in his 95 Theses Luther states, “love grows by works of love, and man becomes better…” I take that to mean that it is a loop that feeds on itself; your love of God, as well as that of your fellow man, grows and as a better person you perform more works of love.
Luther was a child of his time and it was a time when Christianity was being destroyed from within by a hierarchy literally indistinguishable from the Mafia (read about the Popes back then; it will chill you); ignorant, petty, and greedy priests; and congregations unfamiliar with even the basics of Christian doctrine but who were led by fear and intimidation to give all they had to buy salvation for themselves and their families. Their ignorance was not their fault but was, consciously or unconsciously, promoted by the church fathers to make them docile donors. Luther’s greatest feat was to bring Christianity back to the people by insisting they at least learned the basic tenets and prayers, thus his Small Catechism. Again, there is little in it with which a modern Catholic would disagree and the problems with it a Late Medieval priest or bishop might have are more of the “Whadya mean, I’m supposed to be ‘temperate, self controlled, respectable, not given to drunkenness, nor a lover of money?’”
Much of what Luther preached has since been accepted by the Catholic Church and it is a stronger and better institution for it. Far from destroying Christianity, it could be said that Luther saved Christianity.
Jesus prevented the killing of a woman, but He didn’t use violence against the men.
When violence was done to Jesus the disciples were not allowed to use violonce to defend Him.
Where does Jesus teach that violence should be opposed by violence?
Also, Jesus taught that anyone who loves their family members more than Him was not worthy of Him. (Matt 10:37) He also taught that if you love Him you will keep His commandments. (John 14:15,21,23,24)
If the choice was to protect a loved one or follow the commandment of Jesus, what would you do?
What was rude about it? You say you are an atheist, so why you give a shit about God is unclear. Your “response” was evasive, and was a serendipitous philippic about hypocrites that eventually morphed into some casus belli that you perceive at this particular board.
Gah. Even your red herrings have red herrings. If Jesus categorically opposes all violence, as you suggest, then how will He damn people to eternal torture? Is there anything more violent than eternal torture? Also, did you imagine that His trashing of the temple marketplace was done in the form of a delicate ballet? Did He gently gather the coins and toss them wistfully into a nearby fountain? You seem to have this notion that love (what Jesus commanded us to do) is the some of weeniefied ubertolerance. It is as though you’re asserting that He advocates moral cowardice.
Luther’s 95 theses sound like good Christian dogma to me.
But when he wrote a preface to Romans he may have gone too far in the ‘justification without works’ area.
He said that Paul “concludes that Abraham was made righteous apart from all his works by faith alone.” As I’ve pointed out Abraham was not found righteous by simple faith. He was found righteous because he trusted God, whom he already knew existed. In Romans 4:20 Paul writes that Abraham “did not waiver at the promise of God…” This can be said to be an ‘act’ as opposed to simple ‘belief in’.
Luther also cites Paul’s mention of Psalm 32 in Romans 4:6-8. But this psalm is about forgiveness. And when David mentions the Lord not imputing iniquity it is in the context of David’s act of acknowledging and confessing his sins to God. The “grace” is given as the result of an act.
Paul, after referencing David, immediately begins a discussion of blessedness in terms of circumcision, giving more credence to the idea that Paul used “works” to refer to Jewish ritual law, and not merely good deeds.
Even though you have again rudely responded to a civil post, politely asked of another poster (even though in your mind you ‘hear’ an attitude in my words), I will answer you civilly.
Jesus/God told people how to behave on earth, in this life, how we are to treat one another has no bearing on how God will ultimately deal with those who don’t do His will.
As for the temple incident, there is no mention of physical beating of men (couldn’t He have driven them out with threats and bluster?), even though we can all imagine it. Plus, Jesus is the teacher, not the student.
Righteous anger at an insult to God is not analogous to returning violence for violence to another man.
by the way, I didn’t say anything about "categorically opposing all violence’’, I asked questions about violence between men, not between gods and men.
I don’t think being true to principles would be moral cowardice. If a pacifist refuses to fight he will be called a coward but being true to his beliefs is an act of courage. Gandhi’s teaching of non violence was teaching moral courage.
I’ll struggle to survive the slight.
In the meantime, you can view me however you wish, but do note that I have not attacked you, only suggested that you ratchet back the anger.
This is not the only thread in which you have been exchanging barbs with other posters. A single snippy remark does not (in my view) justify an overall tone of hostility.
While Liberal’s question was abrupt, it was asked without any attacks on your person. You actually responded to that post with some explanations that suggested (at the time) that you recognized that his question was sincere. When he responded (from his particular worldview), you then made some rather silly claims about having been here before and knowing “how it works.” If this was true, then you should recognize Liberal’s posting style and realize that he was not doing that which you accused him of.
It also does not explain your reaction to other posters (unless your claim to “know how this works” indicates that you really came here to stir up hostility).
I really am not your enemy. My only point is that any enemies you attract will, in the current circustances, be of your own making.
I “give a shit” because in the course of Moderating this Forum, I find that my experience and the experience of other posters is enhanced when we do not have a lot of personal sniping going on. There is enough anger generated by simply the passion of some of the postions held without encouraging more bad feelings based on extraneous and unnecessary hostility in replies.
Now, regardless of your personal views of the quality of my person, this Forum does have actual rules, including a rule prohibiting personal insults, thus, you will, in the future, refrain from calling anyone in this Forum a “prolix pest.” You will also not refer to any poster (even a Mod) as “butt-sucking.” Gaudere treated your attack on me, yesterday, with humor, assuming that you would understand the basic message and refrain from repeating it.
You have failed to heed her warning, so I am issuing you another warning.
Do not launch personal attacks on posters in Great Debates. The one Forum in which that is allowed is The BBQ Pit and if you feel that you simply must hurl insults, take them there.
If you continue to hurl insults in this Forum, you risk losing your posting priveleges, (which would be a pretty dumb thing to do over the fact that I did not even censure you, to begin with, simply suggesting that you would have a more pleasant experience with less anger).
No, what would have made this a more pleasant experience would have been to pay to enter a forum where I wouldn’t be attacked and then set upon by a “moderator” when I defended myself from his or her buddies.
You are a supercilious, tyrannical, prejudiced fraud on a power trip.
You have stolen my money by harassing me after I paid a subscribers fee.
How many other people have you cyber-mugged?
Here, see if this goes over the line: Suck my dick you hypocritical cocksucker. And fuck you, you lying prick.
