Is non-violence a tenet of the teachings of Christ?

[BrianLewis]

Cherry picking there Brian.

I think you have misunderstood. That is exactly what my statement was. I see no contradiction in the Bible. You are confusing me with ignorant Christians that believe that Jesus was the original hippie movement. That was, in fact, the whole purpose for quoting that.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think you have misunderstood. That is exactly what my statement was. I see no contradiction in the Bible. You are confusing me with ignorant Christians that believe that Jesus was the original hippie movement. That was, in fact, the whole purpose for quoting that.

But you have set aside the law by giving excuses for not adhering. According to Jesus, you are doomed.

 

[BrianLewis]

I know of no scripture that substantiates that statement.

I realize you would stone a judge for doing his job, but how about following forum rules?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

If saying you are doomed violates forum rules, I am sorry. In fact by setting aside OT law, I am sure that Jesus meant you will be welcomed in Heaven with open arms. You have given excellent excuses for doing so after all. Sorry about the mix-up!

 

[GaijinGolfer]

Christians arent taught non-violence as much as they are taught, "thou shalt no kill". Its very different from some of the Buddhist teachings, IMO.
The thing about being a Christian too is that even if you are sinful, you can simply go to church and be absolved of your sins. So, you can pretty much do whatever you want and as long as you ask God for forgiveness, it will be washed away. Its one of the things that I always struggled with when it came to Christianity: you can kill people, lie, cheat, steal, sleep around and as long as you go to church and ask God to forgive you, youre all good. I dont feel like it should be that easy.

 

[BrianLewis]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a poor translation. I would recommend anyone that takes their studies seriously to get a dictionary or concordance and look up 'kill' here. Also, you can't just go into church and repent. You are expected to have a change of heart first. I would also like to point out that you can repent anywhere you are, you don't need to be at church, however, if you don't mean it won't likely do you much good.

 

[GaijinGolfer]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a poor translation. I would recommend anyone that takes their studies seriously to get a dictionary or concordance and look up 'kill' here.

Its a word for word quote from the bible. No need to translate when Im a native English speaker.

Also, you can't just go into church and repent. You are expected to have a change of heart first.

True but does that mean your sins didnt happen and didnt harm others? If someone killed your family and then apolgized, would that make them any less dead? Also, if you commit the same sins over and over, is it really right to be forgiven of them? Some of the best parties Ive been to were church fund raises where the alcohol never stopped flowing.

I would also like to point out that you can repent anywhere you are, you don't need to be at church, however, if you don't mean it won't likely do you much good.

Depends. If youre Catholic the ONLY way your sins can be forgiven is to confess them to a priest do whatever he says in order to recieve absolution.

 

[BrianLewis]

The commandments were originally written in Hebrew. Did you think the Bible was in English first? Furthermore, the translation was done by a man, and men make mistakes.

True but does that mean your sins didnt happen and didnt harm others? If someone killed your family and then apolgized, would that make them any less dead?

No, but then who said that it would? Repentance is about changing who you are, not a means of getting away with a crime.

Also, if you commit the same sins over and over, is it really right to be forgiven of them?

Yes, provided you are seriously attempting to change.

Some of the best parties Ive been to were church fund raises where the alcohol never stopped flowing.

Was someone murdered? I don't get the relevance.

Depends. If youre Catholic the ONLY way your sins can be forgiven is to confess them to a priest do whatever he says in order to recieve absolution.

Well, Catholics have their own way of doing things. I agree that they believe that that is true. However, I have seen no evidence that supports that in the Bible. One should be careful following what men say rather than what the book says.

 

[GaijinGolfer]

The commandments were originally written in Hebrew. Did you think the Bible was in English first? Furthermore, the translation was done by a man, and men make mistakes.

How can you trust whats in the bible then?

No, but then who said that it would? Repentance is about changing who you are, not a means of getting away with a crime.

Actually, it does. Thats the defintion of the word, "forgiveness"

Was someone murdered? I don't get the relevance.

I dont recall saying someone was. The point is you cant preach one thing and do something else.

Well, Catholics have their own way of doing things. I agree that they believe that that is true. However, I have seen no evidence that supports that in the Bible. One should be careful following what men say rather than what the book says.

Is the bible not man's interpretation of God's word? Unless you have a direct line to God, you dont know whats true and whats not.

 

[BrianLewis]

Well, you get a feeling that something seems fishy and look it up in the original language. For example, laws that demand that a person be executed, or that soldiers should defend their country. Instead of assuming that God is inconsistent, you look up the word 'kill' in the 10 commandments and realize that the word is 'murder.'

You don't get away with any crime. You are expected to be punished on earth (death penalty for a murderer) then if you really repented, you can be forgiven later. You are not simply excused of your crime on earth.

I don't recall where it is said that consuming alcohol is a sin. Therefore, I don't see the relevance.

Is the bible not man's interpretation of God's word? Unless you have a direct line to God, you dont know whats true and whats not.

Are you an atheist too? Any true Christian would believe that God has enough power to get his point across using men to do that. If God could turn Saul, who was a paranoid polytheistic king, into a prophet for a day, could He not easily utilize men who followed his rules and wanted to do right in his eyes?

Why then is the translation off? The answers are still there, I suspect it is to see who will look for them, and who will just be lazy and say God is inconsistent.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Are you an atheist too? Any true Christian would believe that God has enough power to get his point across using men to do that."

False dichotomy. You're assuming that he's either an atheist or what you call a "true Christian."

Why would an omnipotent god need to use men to copy, translate, re-copy, and re-translate for more than 1,500 years (before invention of the printing press in Europe -- and yes, I know the Chinese had a version long before that)? Why couldn't he just make exact copies of the Bible appear magically before his believers' eyes?

And why would god use humans to make different versions of the same Bible? Have you ever compared a King James Bible to "modern" translations, both written in English?

"Why then is the translation off? The answers are still there, I suspect it is to see who will look for them, and who will just be lazy and say God is inconsistent."

Either God is inconsistent, or his human mouthpieces are.

 

[GaijinGolfer]

"Are you an atheist too? Any true Christian would believe that God has enough power to get his point across using men to do that."

False dichotomy. You're assuming that he's either an atheist or what you call a "true Christian."

Why would an omnipotent god need to use men to copy, translate, re-copy, and re-translate for more than 1,500 years (before invention of the printing press in Europe -- and yes, I know the Chinese had a version long before that)? Why couldn't he just make exact copies of the Bible appear magically before his believers' eyes?

And why would god use humans to make different versions of the same Bible? Have you ever compared a King James Bible to "modern" translations, both written in English?

"Why then is the translation off? The answers are still there, I suspect it is to see who will look for them, and who will just be lazy and say God is inconsistent."

Either God is inconsistent, or his human mouthpieces are.

Exactly. God's word may well have been there in the beginning but since then men have twisted and used his words for their own devices, mostly as a way to control people.
I was actually raised Lutheran but turned my back on it because it couldnt answer the questions that I had. Now Im a Buddhist because I feel that Buddhism makes the most sense.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Well, you live in my own home town, and I'm inclined to agree with you, so long as you're a Buckeye fan.

 

[BrianLewis]

What questions exactly? Did you read the book to find the answers, or just listen to whoever was preaching to you?

I agree that churches like to preach their own doctrine, however don't confuse their misuse of the Bible as the Bible itself. Would you trust a scientist without documentation? Then why would you trust a preacher without doing the same?