There are 2 divine works. The Bible and creation (the universe) itself. God worked truth (His will) into both. That's why when people ignore God's commandments/will in the real world, they always fail, are hurt, or die. The Bible doesn't contain the sum total of all information, truth, and logic. But, the universe does. We can test what works and what doesn't, to determine God's will. We can figure out sound logic and consistent logic on our own. This is widely speculated as to how we were made in God's image, that we have the divine ability to reason, to determine truth through logic.
You say "us, as Christians" - yet, you lie about Christianity. You are a fake Christian at most, and a shill at least.
How did I lie? How am I a fake Christian. Be specific.
"Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”" - Matthew 15:14
Interesting, as this is what I'm arguing against with you. You are blind to the bigger picture, completely ignoring the wider scope of God's creation and His divinely ascribed will in this universe (i.e. the truth), so you can use cherry picked Biblical passages to support your false assertions which don't align with reality. You are the "blind" in the passage you quoted.
And btw Jesus gave us the sword of Truth. Not any imaginary thing that you are using to incite violence among Christians.
The truth acts like a sword because God's will (truth) in this universe punishes those who ignore it, whether intentionally or by naivety. However, this doesn't mean good people, Christian or otherwise, should remain peaceful no matter what.
"you're a fool, you're weak, and you deserve nothing" - All your insults show me that you are a violent and unbalanced person.
I'm not a violent person. It's just that I see the fruits of evil all around me, the lies, the malicious violence, the greed, the sin, and it's hurting everything I love, impugning on everything truthful, and I want to stop it. Your way is what led us here, through good men doing nothing, remaining peaceful no matter what, which enabled evil to prosper and spread. My way would stamp out evil.
You need help.
I agree only insofar as that more good men need to wake up to the kind of lies you're espousing. Peace, for the sake of peace, is a failed philosophy, and as such, is not what Jesus/God argues. Any Biblical passage which you posit to the contrary is a perversion of scripture (i.e. of the devil).
Wow, you took 5 days to write a response that doesn't include any Bible verses?
I try to limit social media use. One way I do that is by waiting to respond to replies every few days. Also, I don't have to use Bible verses, as I explained, there are 2 works of God. And as you've shown thus far, Bible verses can be manipulated to support one's false view point, when in reality it's in contradiction to God's will (and reality).
What does it say then, about you, that you responded to me in less than 30 minutes, on a 5 day old comment? Is that more telling of you, than me? What then will you say, when I respond to this reply, in short order, because it's at a time when I'm handling replies?
You pretend to be a Christian, but you are obviously just a "wolf in sheeps clothing".
How so? Be specific.
Who are you trying to convince here?
Is everyone like you stupid, that you can divine no other purpose for this? Here, I'll explain it, again (and just copy/paste from a previous comment):
There's several purposes to debate.
It enables two parties to pursue truth, if both parties are civil, honest, logical, and prioritize truth above themselves. This currently isn't happening here.
It enables the disagreeing parties to air their thoughts to anyone listening, who might be swayed by what they hear. This isn't happening here, either, as it's just you and me here.
It enables one to learn about their opponent, and themselves. Just like exercise trains the body, just as tempering and working steel hardens and sharpens it, so too does debate and questioning hone a man's ideas and philosophies. Even if the disagreeing party isn't pursuing good debate, even if no one else is listening, partaking in such an endeavor has benefits. Weak men never exercise, weak men are never challenged, weak ideas are never questioned. Strength is derived from adversity, which debate provides for ideas.
I know demons like you stay away from the Bible. That's exactly why I use it against you.
You have provided exactly 2 Biblical passage to assert your view that good people, Christians, should remain peaceful and never fight back, and of those, they can be interpreted the other way, and there are other Biblical passages with refute your way of interpreting it.
If you so much want to perish in Hell, then don't be surprised that no one follows you there.
Why would I go to hell? For fighting back against evil, for stopping it from hurting that which is good? Would you levy the same judgment against God, for doing the same thing, and for the same reasons? Is God in hell, according to your reasoning?
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18
Look, another Biblical passage that is more applicable to you, than me. Please, by all means, keep quoting scripture. Maybe at some point you'll realize you are advocating for a position that is of the devil, who is the father of lies.
Being self-righteous doesn't make you truly righteous.
On that, I agree. There's clearly a disagreement on how it's applied.
You want to push Christians into a revolt
No. I only want good people, truthbound people, Christians, to resist evil, to espouse truth in the face of lies, to fight evil when it attempts to harm what they love (if what they love is truthbound).
but our Lord has said "turn the other cheek".
Oh look, another passage that has other ways of being interpreted, but which you use to advocate for peace, for the sake of peace, no matter what, and which you refuse to address on its face, because you know the position is ridiculously false.
According to your own translation of that verse, it means you should accept the slights of others. So, why are you ignoring your own interpretation of that passage, and being hostile toward me? Shouldn't you, according to the Bible, accept my refutations, my "slaps"? Why are you being unChristian to rebuke me, who you claim to be unChristian? Are you a hypocrite, or just a bad Christian?
For the sake of argument, here are alternative arguments for Matthew 5:39:
Much of the material surrounding Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek complements the nature of His coming, which was characterized by mercy, sacrificial love, and longsuffering toward sinners. At the same time, Jesus affirms the “last is first” principle upon which the kingdom of God is based. For instance, He tells us to go the extra mile for someone who abuses us (Matthew 5:41) and to love and pray for our enemies instead of holding enmity against them (verse 44). In summary, Jesus is saying we need to be pure inside and out and as accommodating as possible for the sake of a lost world.
In essence, according to this interpretation, it means that we shouldn't escalate an evil, for fear of growing the evil. We should meet evil with love, so that we deescalate it, and grow the kingdom of Christ on earth. However, pertaining to this argument, if who we're facing won't back down, and will escalate no matter what, this lesson is null and void, and there's no reason for us to turn the other cheek.
Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort”
This means, essentially, to act in a way which facilitates peace, against honorable opponents. However, as I've repeatedly been arguing, if our enemy doesn't want peace, we have zero reason to turn the other cheek.
Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system. Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal “rights” or avenge his honor.
Uh oh, not your heckin' pacifism. This here, just like above, is advocating for acting/reacting in a way which leads to peace (when our opponents/aggressors are honorable). Our opponents aren't honorable, and seek the death of each and every one of us. Thus, we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
There was a time in history when a man would feel compelled to protect his honor against one who slandered him or otherwise besmirched his character. The offended party would challenge the offender to a duel. Swords, firearms, or other weapons were chosen, and the two enemies would face off. In most cases, senseless bloodshed ensued. Samuel Johnson wrote in favor of the practice of dueling: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” The problem is that “invasions of character” are exactly what Jesus told us to tolerate in Matthew 5:38. Turning the other cheek would have been a better option than dueling, and it would have saved lives.
Oh look, historical applicability to the Biblical passage in question. Shocking! This aligns with the previous parts of Matthew 5 (like in 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’"), that Jesus is merely advocating for instilling more peace upon people seeking needless violence (among honorable opponents). And, repeatedly, our opponents are honorable, and seek violence regardless of what we do, thus we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
Jesus was, of course, the perfect example of turning the other cheek because He was silent before His accusers and did not call down revenge from heaven on those who crucified Him. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
Keep in mind that Jesus knew that his opponents would be met with failure, harm, death, and hell, regardless of what they did to him. He didn't need to seek immediate retribution, as he knew what awaited them should they continue on their course. He prayed for their change of heart, but knew what awaited them should they continue on their path. This doesn't necessarily mean that someone should never fight back, however.
There has been thousands of interpretations of this phrase across time, but I will show you a few that could help us to understand it better.
Many theologians, like N.T Wright (former Bishop of Durham) and P.T Penley, tell us that the answer lies in the historical and linguistic context of the phrase. They see meaning in the fact that Jesus doesn’t generally talk about turning your cheek, but specifically focuses on turning from the right one to the left: “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also”. They highlight that Roman soldiers would slap Jewish citizens on the right cheek, using the back of their hands – the type of slap reserved for their ‘inferiors’. However, backhandedly slapping a person on the left cheek (which is what you are forcing them to do when you turn your cheek) would indicate that the recipient was an equal...Thus, this act of “turning the other cheek” has been interpreted as a subtle assertion of the oppressed person’s humanity: pointing out their equal status of being human, to the attacker. Jesus doesn’t suggest that we offer ourselves up as a sacrifice or invite our aggressor to hurt us again, as I initially thought; he is encouraging a nonviolent strategy of highlighting that the attacker is mistreating a fellow human being. Barbara Reid says that the aggressor is then “shamed” and “humiliated” by this highlighting of their wrongdoing.
This would indicate Jesus is advocating for the victim to force the attacker to treat/view him as an equal. This is completely contradictory to your assertion that God/Jesus advocates for us to be pacifists in the face of our own destruction.
So, what interpretation is correct? Is it yours? Why? Are you asserting it's yours because it supports your positions, or because it's what God intended? If so, what is the reasoning for why God and Jesus advocates for us to remain peaceful even when evil threatens to destroy us and everything we love? Is that truly a logical and just position?
You also asked for other Biblical passages which support the position that Jesus/God support righteous violence. Here you go:
Pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament is God commanding the Israelites to war with and destroy various people so they can inhabit a specific area. Are you arguing that God was wrong throughout all of the OT period? Why would God/Jesus command us to be pacifists but completely contradict Himself when commanding the Israelites to go the war?
Exodus 15:3: The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Joshua 10: 7-11: So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.” After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
Deuteronomy 20:1: When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.
Exodus 22:2: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
This is probably referring to the fact that someone defending their home, in the dark, is more understood to self defense (and defense of family) in the dark/night, than in the day. However, again, this is probably swayed by variations in customs of the time, which alter interpretation.
Leviticus 24:17-22: “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”
Was God blaspheming himself here?
Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Was God blaspheming himself here, opposing your divine edicts? How dare God oppose your assertions?!
Exodus 21:12–14: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die."
Was God blaspheming against your divine decree here?
Romans 13:4: for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Why would God command us to be pacifists, when He Himself holds the sword?
Proverbs 24:5-6: A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.
Oh look, the Bible espousing EXACTLY what I've been arguing this entire time, that good men (truthbound men) are righteous in their violence and wars, and if they are truthbound, they will surely find victory, and that God approves of it.
Do you need more examples, or will you continue to argue that Jesus/God advocates for us to remain peaceful no matter what?
There are 2 divine works. The Bible and creation (the universe) itself. God worked truth (His will) into both. That's why when people ignore God's commandments/will in the real world, they always fail, are hurt, or die. The Bible doesn't contain the sum total of all information, truth, and logic. But, the universe does. We can test what works and what doesn't, to determine God's will. We can figure out sound logic and consistent logic on our own. This is widely speculated as to how we were made in God's image, that we have the divine ability to reason, to determine truth through logic.
How did I lie? How am I a fake Christian. Be specific.
Interesting, as this is what I'm arguing against with you. You are blind to the bigger picture, completely ignoring the wider scope of God's creation and His divinely ascribed will in this universe (i.e. the truth), so you can use cherry picked Biblical passages to support your false assertions which don't align with reality. You are the "blind" in the passage you quoted.
The truth acts like a sword because God's will (truth) in this universe punishes those who ignore it, whether intentionally or by naivety. However, this doesn't mean good people, Christian or otherwise, should remain peaceful no matter what.
I'm not a violent person. It's just that I see the fruits of evil all around me, the lies, the malicious violence, the greed, the sin, and it's hurting everything I love, impugning on everything truthful, and I want to stop it. Your way is what led us here, through good men doing nothing, remaining peaceful no matter what, which enabled evil to prosper and spread. My way would stamp out evil.
I agree only insofar as that more good men need to wake up to the kind of lies you're espousing. Peace, for the sake of peace, is a failed philosophy, and as such, is not what Jesus/God argues. Any Biblical passage which you posit to the contrary is a perversion of scripture (i.e. of the devil).
Wow, you took 5 days to write a response that doesn't include any Bible verses?
You pretend to be a Christian, but you are obviously just a "wolf in sheeps clothing".
Who are you trying to convince here?
I know demons like you stay away from the Bible. That's exactly why I use it against you.
If you so much want to perish in Hell, then don't be surprised that no one follows you there.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18
I try to limit social media use. One way I do that is by waiting to respond to replies every few days. Also, I don't have to use Bible verses, as I explained, there are 2 works of God. And as you've shown thus far, Bible verses can be manipulated to support one's false view point, when in reality it's in contradiction to God's will (and reality).
What does it say then, about you, that you responded to me in less than 30 minutes, on a 5 day old comment? Is that more telling of you, than me? What then will you say, when I respond to this reply, in short order, because it's at a time when I'm handling replies?
How so? Be specific.
Is everyone like you stupid, that you can divine no other purpose for this? Here, I'll explain it, again (and just copy/paste from a previous comment):
There's several purposes to debate.
It enables two parties to pursue truth, if both parties are civil, honest, logical, and prioritize truth above themselves. This currently isn't happening here.
It enables the disagreeing parties to air their thoughts to anyone listening, who might be swayed by what they hear. This isn't happening here, either, as it's just you and me here.
It enables one to learn about their opponent, and themselves. Just like exercise trains the body, just as tempering and working steel hardens and sharpens it, so too does debate and questioning hone a man's ideas and philosophies. Even if the disagreeing party isn't pursuing good debate, even if no one else is listening, partaking in such an endeavor has benefits. Weak men never exercise, weak men are never challenged, weak ideas are never questioned. Strength is derived from adversity, which debate provides for ideas.
You have provided exactly 2 Biblical passage to assert your view that good people, Christians, should remain peaceful and never fight back, and of those, they can be interpreted the other way, and there are other Biblical passages with refute your way of interpreting it.
Why would I go to hell? For fighting back against evil, for stopping it from hurting that which is good? Would you levy the same judgment against God, for doing the same thing, and for the same reasons? Is God in hell, according to your reasoning?
Look, another Biblical passage that is more applicable to you, than me. Please, by all means, keep quoting scripture. Maybe at some point you'll realize you are advocating for a position that is of the devil, who is the father of lies.
Being self-righteous doesn't make you truly righteous.
You want to push Christians into a revolt, but our Lord has said "turn the other cheek".
Your anger and your ego won't help you.
On that, I agree. There's clearly a disagreement on how it's applied.
No. I only want good people, truthbound people, Christians, to resist evil, to espouse truth in the face of lies, to fight evil when it attempts to harm what they love (if what they love is truthbound).
Oh look, another passage that has other ways of being interpreted, but which you use to advocate for peace, for the sake of peace, no matter what, and which you refuse to address on its face, because you know the position is ridiculously false.
According to your own translation of that verse, it means you should accept the slights of others. So, why are you ignoring your own interpretation of that passage, and being hostile toward me? Shouldn't you, according to the Bible, accept my refutations, my "slaps"? Why are you being unChristian to rebuke me, who you claim to be unChristian? Are you a hypocrite, or just a bad Christian?
For the sake of argument, here are alternative arguments for Matthew 5:39:
https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html
In essence, according to this interpretation, it means that we shouldn't escalate an evil, for fear of growing the evil. We should meet evil with love, so that we deescalate it, and grow the kingdom of Christ on earth. However, pertaining to this argument, if who we're facing won't back down, and will escalate no matter what, this lesson is null and void, and there's no reason for us to turn the other cheek.
This means, essentially, to act in a way which facilitates peace, against honorable opponents. However, as I've repeatedly been arguing, if our enemy doesn't want peace, we have zero reason to turn the other cheek.
Uh oh, not your heckin' pacifism. This here, just like above, is advocating for acting/reacting in a way which leads to peace (when our opponents/aggressors are honorable). Our opponents aren't honorable, and seek the death of each and every one of us. Thus, we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
Oh look, historical applicability to the Biblical passage in question. Shocking! This aligns with the previous parts of Matthew 5 (like in 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’"), that Jesus is merely advocating for instilling more peace upon people seeking needless violence (among honorable opponents). And, repeatedly, our opponents are honorable, and seek violence regardless of what we do, thus we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
Keep in mind that Jesus knew that his opponents would be met with failure, harm, death, and hell, regardless of what they did to him. He didn't need to seek immediate retribution, as he knew what awaited them should they continue on their course. He prayed for their change of heart, but knew what awaited them should they continue on their path. This doesn't necessarily mean that someone should never fight back, however.
Here's another link:
https://www.thebubble.org.uk/culture/philosophy-religion/the-path-of-most-resistance-what-does-it-mean-to-turn-the-other-cheek/
This would indicate Jesus is advocating for the victim to force the attacker to treat/view him as an equal. This is completely contradictory to your assertion that God/Jesus advocates for us to be pacifists in the face of our own destruction.
So, what interpretation is correct? Is it yours? Why? Are you asserting it's yours because it supports your positions, or because it's what God intended? If so, what is the reasoning for why God and Jesus advocates for us to remain peaceful even when evil threatens to destroy us and everything we love? Is that truly a logical and just position?
You also asked for other Biblical passages which support the position that Jesus/God support righteous violence. Here you go:
Pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament is God commanding the Israelites to war with and destroy various people so they can inhabit a specific area. Are you arguing that God was wrong throughout all of the OT period? Why would God/Jesus command us to be pacifists but completely contradict Himself when commanding the Israelites to go the war?
This is probably referring to the fact that someone defending their home, in the dark, is more understood to self defense (and defense of family) in the dark/night, than in the day. However, again, this is probably swayed by variations in customs of the time, which alter interpretation.
Was God blaspheming himself here?
Was God blaspheming himself here, opposing your divine edicts? How dare God oppose your assertions?!
Was God blaspheming against your divine decree here?
Why would God command us to be pacifists, when He Himself holds the sword?
Oh look, the Bible espousing EXACTLY what I've been arguing this entire time, that good men (truthbound men) are righteous in their violence and wars, and if they are truthbound, they will surely find victory, and that God approves of it.
Do you need more examples, or will you continue to argue that Jesus/God advocates for us to remain peaceful no matter what?