I think it's more a reference to what the mods on TheDonald (and the site admins) censor.
That user couldn't have made it more obvious that they have no clue about any conspiracies around 9/11, or anything else about the "war on terror".
The person you're replying to, I'm fairly certain, is a discord shill, trying to sow chaos in the forum. Every interaction he has with people here is to stir up drama and shit, to piss people off and drive them away. Peruse his comment history as proof.
Nothing you said isn't hateful driven.
HAHAHAHAHA. I don't care. Hate isn't inherently wrong.
Not even a citation.
You don't need a citation for sound consistent logic.
You're a waste of space.
We all are. We all fall short of the perfection of God. Fortunately, we were redeemed by Christ, and I have faith in Him, and follow in His footsteps.
Your willingness to make extreme comments because, " this is an extreme site" is enemy within.
Oh okay, you're just trolling. Thanks. Have a wonderful weekend. And thanks for the laughs.
Are you aware manosphere agreed with the Islamic State attempted terrorist attack in Vienna? Is that where you align yourself?
Uhhhh, no. Like I said, "I'm not manosphere or MGTOW".
Show me where in the above linked information you find an error.
They're poorer and dumber because they're not White. Also, I don't care what non-whites do in their own countries, so long as they leave us the hell alone. I'm a nationalist, which by the very root word definition, means I'm an ethno nationalist.
Removing education, and rights for women make stupid children including boys.
No it doesn't. If empowered women and feminism produced a better society, education rates wouldn't be tanking in the U.S. for decades. Every single society on earth, for thousands of years, has rightfully curtailed specific "rights" of women, because they're inherently emotional and empathetic, and less logical than men. This doesn't mean women are "oppressed", just that they're not given rights that they shouldn't have, since men and women are biologically different, physically and mentally, and fulfill different roles in the species. Trying to equate unequal things as being equal is the sign of indoctrination and/or stupidity. Egalitarianism is a lie by the people in power.
I have no time for dumb shit.
Weird, neither do I. But, I often entertain woefully wrong people in debate because it provides multiple benefits.
I've pointed out your logical errors.
No you didn't. Linking to two articles doesn't disprove anything. Linking the two articles you did, specifically, didn't disprove anything I said.
If you choose to ignore it, that's on you.
Yes, it is. And I'm fine with that. I sleep soundly, because my ideas are vetted, well challenged, very well thought over, and honed sharp. I've spent every night from 15 to early 30s waking up in the middle of the night obsessing about philosophical problems, for several hours, resulting in an average of 1-5 hours of sleep every night for all of those years. I slowly learned the answers to them, though.
But again, what you levy against me is more suited to you.
You are choosing to make extreme comments online aligning yourself with terrorists.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you lost? This entire site and this forum are labelled "extremist" by the people in power. I don't care one iota what you or my enemies label me as. I care what I actually am, objectively.
Not too bright.
You don't own a mirror, do you?
I'm not manosphere or MGTOW (although they're correct on a lot of things, just not on the solutions). Are you suggesting I'm wrong, that feminism isn't destructive, because "Taliban"? It's hard to tell because your reply was terse.
We absolutely need more kids, just the right kind. Every White nation (and several non-white) that have embraced feminism, has resulted in a birth rate below 2.1. Feminism is the primary cause, because it pushes women into the workforce en masse during their most fertile years, to "pursue their careers". It also makes coupling harder, as women are naturally hypergamous, meaning they'll only be attracted to men that make more money than them, and if society is forced to pay women the same as men, women automatically remove 50% of men from the dating pool.
Thus, White women are only prompted to have kids when they're in their late 20s or early 30s, when their biological clock is ticking down and they've been on birth control since hitting puberty (which also causes huge problems with fertility), and their chances of landing a good man and having more than 2 healthy kids is abysmal.
This results in a low birth rate, so the hand rubbing people in power can claim we don't have enough workers, so they can then open the borders and mass immigrate millions upon millions of non-whites, to "do the jobs we don't want to do" (even though we've been doing those jobs ourselves all along). It's called the Kalergi plan, the intentional replacement and genocide of White people.
Every step of this process is planned and intentional by the people in power. Feminism, every stage of it, birth control, open borders, mass non-white immigration, all of it.
You want to fix the birth rates? Get rid of feminism. Want to fix feminism? <fedpost> the people in power. Nothing else will fix it.
I'm not sure on the nuclear war, or them planning a big war of any kind. Too many men are refusing to cooperate with their thoroughly corrupted nations (governments), in the West and non-West. I know they want to reduce population numbers, but I figure they'd do it more through pandemic routes.
As for nuclear war, specifically, it would run completely contrary to their Kalergi plan goals. Western cities are mostly non-white now. It's where most of the non-whites live. If you go into rural areas, they're still mostly, if not entirely, White. A nuclear war results in cities and military bases being targeted, the exact locations globohomo doesn't want to be destroyed. They need the military to enforce their edicts and to quell coming dissident movements among the people, and they need cities for the non-whites and Kalergi plan.
As for the rest of your comment, I agree. Perhaps the people in power are just so filled with hubris that they think they can't lose, and are pushing us toward their own destruction because of it. It's difficult to tell. But, since all of them are evil, hypocrites, and liars, they're plans aren't truthbound, so are doomed to fail.
The petro dollar and America's ability to enforce it has waned a great deal, and continues to weaken. With it, one of the critical ways to fund globohomo is decreasing, so they have to rely more on money printing, which is further fucking all economies reliant on the petro dollar. This is probably why so many countries are starting to trade for oil with other currencies and hoarding gold. In the past, countries that did this would get (((freedomized))) by the U.S. military, but they're not right now, which is a big indicator for how weakened the globalist military arm has become.
This economic downturn and the coming collapse is obvious to anyone with half a brain, though. The people in power can't keep injecting diversity and mass immigration of non-whites into White countries (the Kalergi plan) and expect everything White people built to remain functioning. All of Western civilization (not just the economy) is headed toward collapse because White people are being replaced, not getting hired in critical infrastructure, and taxed into destitution, while White people are the only demographic in White countries (other than Asians) which are net taxpayers. Every aspect of Western civilization is getting diversified and retarded, and in critical infrastructure, is causing failures, deaths, and weakening of globohomo along with everyone else.
The big question is how much of this is anticipated by the hand rubbing people in power, and if they have counter plans for the collapse. This is because civilizational collapse will enable the dissident voices, which have thus far been censored and quelled, to gain massive traction, organization, and manpower, as well as robbing the globalists of all their power structures and propaganda outlets. This will result in them losing, big time. So, what counter plans do they have, if any? That's what we have to prepare for, beyond the normal prepping we should already be doing.
They're false saviors, propped up and offered to us by the people in power, as a control mechanism.
The primary control mechanism is the false left/right political dichotomy. It gives people the illusion of choice, of resistance, but in a carefully curated Overton window which is entirely controlled by the people in power. Over time, people will wake up to the illusion, and wander off the plantation. When these lost sheep get big enough, they have the power to stay things, and will often form their own political parties (like Occupy Wallstreet, the Tea Party, the Libertarian party). These parties, if not subverted at the very outset, become subverted through infiltration, moving the party back into the frame of the Overton window, neutering it, preventing the people within it from effectually resisting.
The lost sheep are also offered false saviors, who speak like the lost sheep, to capture their support, but over time will move the lost sheep back toward the Overton window.
There are clear indicators if a person is genuine, and if they're worthy of trust and loyalty from us lost sheep. We have to be wise and discerning to figure out who is who, so we don't waste our time or support. That, and we must openly and loudly reject the false saviors, to warn others, and potential, genuine leaders must rise and offer their services, of their own volition, because we desperately need them. Leaders act as condensation points and rallying points, where the individual members may be hopeless, the collectivization provides power and voice.
Even "free speech" websites like Gab are now paywalling older content (only the most recent 2 months for free Gab users with a profile, and 1 week for non users). Free Gab users can't even access their own content, which they posted to the site. Torba is increasingly proving himself to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. This change essentially removes all content older than the perpetual "now", unless you pay Torba shekels.
You have repeatedly refused to address any of the Biblical passages or logical refutations on the failures of pacifism. To limit my social media use, I wait to reply to my notifications on one day, often waiting a week or two, doing it on a day where I have the free time to do it. Some of us can't spend our entire lives online. We have other priorities. This website, and most social media sites, facilitate long form interactions, because they don't delete old posts or comments. We can, at will, choose to come back to a conversation, or revive an old one, whenever we choose. But, back to the topic at hand:
Let's start at the beginning.
What, EXACTLY, are you arguing for? Do you advocate that good men, Christian men, never, ever, become violent, even to protect themselves, their children, their wives, their fellow Christians, or their neighbors?
I'm advocating that good men, Christian men, are absolutely called to be peaceful, when peace is called for, when peace is the best option. However, such men should, and are justified, to be violent against people who wish to corrupt, subvert, harm, and destroy them, their family, their people, or the truth itself.
I've seen pkvi for a while now. I've never seen him advocate for dismantling every single thing, including the good things. Even in the instance you linked to, it's more likely a passionate but less defined response than an actual position you're claiming he espouses. To be fair, though, he could believe in that, but, given all the other interactions, posts, and comments I've seen of him, I highly doubt that's the case. The worst thing that can be said of him is that he title gores his post titles.
Debates are nearly impossible to have in a free for all, where the entire crowd participates. You'll notice that all formal debates are organized with 2 parties, and a larger crowd of observers. I thought this was common knowledge?
This is the specific post where the debate occurred:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17txMXkPyd/st-john-chrysostom-on-how-to-dea/c
This is the specific thread for the debate:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17txMXkPyd/st-john-chrysostom-on-how-to-dea/c/4ZDrsKiNDUv
Yeah, please check the comments that u/ApexVeritas "can't provide at the moment"...
I've provided numerous Biblical passages which prove my position. All of which u/Neo1 didn't refute. He instead takes very few specific passages, uses them to mean what he wants them to mean, when they have numerous alternate meanings, which I provided, and proclaims victory.
Observe how he can't respond to quotes from the Bible, just like you can't do it.
The linked thread in question proves the opposite, and anyone is free to read it for themselves. You claiming otherwise is more testament that you're a subversive, antithetical to truth, and put yourself above God/truth. Good people don't claim the sky isn't blue, that water isn't wet, and yet, here you are (again), denying blatant observable truths, all to fellate yourself.
Public discourse (whether good or bad) enables observers to learn something, about the viewpoints of each party, about the parties themselves, about the topic, and how they view it.
The person you're replying to is a pacifist "christian". I was in a debate with him and he ignored every single point of logic about righteous people being justified in being violent against people hurting them, and every single instance in the Bible where Jesus and God condoned violence by righteous people. If you dig into my profile back a few weeks, you'll find the debate.
At some point, the corruption can get so deep that only violence will fix it. None of us want to completely dismantle society just to root out the evil. We just acknowledge that the evil is now so entrenched that a lot of damage will have to be done to root it out.
Unless we're just talking past each other. Do you see any alternative? Also, where did you see the OP advocate for complete societal dismantling?
I think OP is referring to the "system" as the current corrupted, satanic, globalist, ((())) system, which needs to be destroyed.
Trump is a false messiah, another outlet of control used against right wingers who strayed off the mainstream right wing plantation, which perfectly explains his behavior.
He was an establishment Democrat right up until he ran for office in 2016, and ran in all the same circles with the worst people in D.C. Hollywood, and media (you'll know a man by the company they keep). Then, he said all the right things to win over the dissident right during his 2016 campaign. His rhetoric was even used to fear monger and strengthen the establishment left. He corralled all the dissident right under his banner, and over time, has weakened his positions on everything, bringing them more in line within the Overton window of the globohomo uniparty. He also intentionally surrounded himself with "backstabbers", and still does, people who intentionally sabotaged his presidency, giving him plausible deniability for why his policies failed. Under Trump, the right wing has accepted fags and trannies, expressed more support for Israel, and again, has turned the right wing into "big tent" politics, arguing that White people must accept browns if we're to survive, or win another election. It's ridiculously obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the Kaleri plan.
As this slow slide of MAGA back to globohomo continues, as his betrayals continue and get bigger, he'll continue to lose support among White people. He's already lost the racist and actual dissident Whites. Normal White guys are next. White women, low T men, and boomers will be his last supporters, with a sprinkling of non-whites and fags for token points, just like the Republican party is right now.
They say he's going to win the 2024 election big time, but he may very well lose a big chunk of the White male vote, compensated by useful idiot non-whites who'll vote for him just so they can survive the hyper inflation in the current economy.
If you seek only to justify your rage and ego - go ahead.
If it's true, it's justified. I've justified everything I've said thus far with logic and with Biblical passages, many of them. Just because you deny it doesn't make it false.
I will try my best to remain meek.
On this, I will cast judgment upon you. You won't be meek. You don't even know what it means. You will be prideful and antagonistic against God. You will demand He adhere to your whims, and not you adhere to Him. You will follow your own course, and fail in kind. Only in failure, of being broken, will you ever come to see the light of God. I have no control over your course. Only you do, in pursuit of current course, in needless misery, and defiance of God, through your own choices. I've given you the option, the knowledge to correct course. It's up to you to change. Free will, after all, is the only way we can be rightly judged. Your decisions are your own.
With all your boasting, you have 6 posts in here... You're such a "warrior of justice"... Perhaps I should delete 90% of my posts to be more like you?
Delete nothing. Even errors toward pursuit of truth are worthy to follow. And, again, you cast stones at me not knowing. Keep flinging, your stones do not hurt.
None of the verses gives you the right to be violent...None of the verses say that YOU should be violent.
It's rather remarkable how defiant people can be when presented with truth. I could tell you the sky is blue, present every logical, scientific, and observable fact to you, and you would stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and scream as loudly as possible, hoping the truth went away. That's not how truth works. It is ever present, ever judgeful, just as God, because they are the same and of the same. Denial of truth is denial of God. Not knowing one is to not know the other.
You are so prideful in your denials that you've missed the bigger picture. You have placed yourself above truth, above God, demanding both be subservient to you. In the place of God, there you dwell, claiming yourself to be God, ever boastful and prideful. In your height of folly, so too will you fall greatly. That is what awaits your course. I warn you, but, your actions are your own.
If you only knew the real battle is won through the truth, not by a sword, or simple arrogance...
I've attempted to explain to you, in detail, through logic and Biblical passages, that violence is not inherently wrong, that good people can be violent and be just, righteous, and adhere to God's commands. And yet, you still deny, because you place yourself above God. It's rather odd that you say "real battle is won through the truth", which is true, but then you wholly deny the truth. You claim to be righteous, but cut out every part of you which is righteous, and replace where you once were with hypocrisies and idols of Saturn.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
You, again, intentionally misinterpret the Bible to support your own position. You're not acting like a Christian. You're acting like a child of the devil, who is the father of lies, the antithesis of God. You think the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. You demand God adhere to your own assertions, and not you to His.
Matthew 16:24-25 means precisely what I've been telling you. You can't pursue Jesus/God while prioritizing yourself above them, above truth. You have to accept when you're wrong, and adjust accordingly when you find out you erred. You can't learn when you're prideful, which you are. You can't admit wrong when you proclaim perfection, which you are. You can't improve when you think you're never wrong, which you are.
You must accept you've sinned, to know of your imperfections, and try to overcome them, to prioritize and pursue truth, to embody it, to come closer to God. To "take up one's cross" is to bear the burden that comes with pursuing truth, to pursuing perfection. to pursuing God. Sinning is easy. Perfection is hard, and for us it's impossible, but a cross we must bear. To "save their life will lose it" but "whoever loses their life for me will find it" literally means that life, for the sake of life, leads to ruin, but life, in pursuit of truth, in pursuit of God, will be saved (i.e. live). This is why, philosophically, we must prioritize truth above life. If we prioritize life above truth, we sacrifice truth and inevitably die; and is also what corrupted modern philosophy teaches, through various means, like with feminism (the inversion of the natural patriarchal order and the philosophical pursuits of men and women, of truth and life respectively). The Bible, explicitly and implicitly, many, many times, says that Jesus/God are truth incarnate, or that truth is Their will in this universe. Reread the Bible, and every time you see Jesus/God, replace their name with "truth", and the passages will make more sense. To deny truth, is to deny Jesus/God. Matthew 16:26 means that pursuing our own interests, our own power, our own greed, will result in ruin (our soul will be damned), but pursuing God, pursuing, truth, will save us.
Are you ready to die for Christianity, or live for your ego?
There's only one person here who knows what it means to be Christian, and to let go of ego. It's not you.
It's not like I wish for things to be the way they are. I don't burn with rage at the way things are, I simply try to find out what is. I've changed my mind many times, and some of them core philosophical and foundational beliefs, so that I can adhere closer to truth, even within the last few years. Why? Because I was wrong. Because I prioritize truth above myself. I let go of my ego. I am a servant of God, and I know exactly what that means.
What have you changed your mind on lately?
A nose slowly appears from the depths, breaking the surface of the waves, rapidly approaching the swimmers, as terror mounts, and the gaping maw opens, yelling "OY VEY!"
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:
https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html
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.
Here's another link:
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?
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.
It's the truth. You're free to disagree at your leisure, but disagreement with truth doesn't change it. I use social media how it suites me, not how you want me to.
I sometimes will go back to specific discussions because I found them interesting. However, the bulk of replies I get are answered all at once, in one day.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean I was "demolished". That's not how truth works. You again reveal that you place yourself above truth, above God, thinking that anything that escapes your lips is sacrosanct, above challenge, truth by its very nature. Wrong! That's hubris! It isn't just unChristian, it's anti-Christian. You deny your own faults and place yourself above God. If you continue to act and believe in this way, you are damned.
I'm well aware of what you already posted. I was wanting you to give more nuance and explanation, out of the remote possibility that you might not believe what you've been arguing for this entire time. Thus far, you've unabashedly argued that Christians should be peaceful, no matter what. You've not refined that argument once in this entire "debate".
You do know that satan quotes scripture, right? He does so to confuse Christians, to lead us astray with false interpretations, so he can worm his way into our lives and destroy us. A false interpretation of scripture is a lie, a falsehood, and is of the devil, and requires rebuke.
Furthermore, the passages you quoted were taken out of context, and didn't mean what you suggested they meant. The Bible, Jesus, nor God argue for Christians to be peaceful no matter what. I provided numerous alternative explanations for the passages you quoted, and provided context to them, and then posted numerous more passages which directly refute your assertion that God and Jesus demands we be peaceful no matter what.
Wrong. Your hubris shows itself again. Predict the future and fail.
Wait... You claim I didn't read what you wrote, and yet you try to quote Matthew 5:38-40 again? You flaming hypocrite.
I already disproved that passage was arguing for pacifism. I posted 2 (out of many times many) links which directly refute what you're arguing, and numerous alternative explanations for that passage. Go up a few comments and reread (look for the blue links). But, here, let me post them for you again:
https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html
https://www.thebubble.org.uk/culture/philosophy-religion/the-path-of-most-resistance-what-does-it-mean-to-turn-the-other-cheek/
On this, we agree. The word of God is truth itself. Truth is immutable, it doesn't change. Nothing we say contrary to it will change it. Logic, the mathematical rules, the scientific rules, the constants of the universe, none of them change. As an aside, logic is the one way we can divine truth with 100% certainty, and sound logic doesn't change either. What's true is true, and will always be true. This is why God wins, and satan loses. God is truth, and satan is lies and falsehoods. Victory can only be attained by alignment with truth (God).
Also, I find it ironic that you said what you did in the 2nd sentence, as "protect" necessarily requires that good men sometimes utilize violence to protect what we love, what is good and truthful.
I'm not sure if you're misquoting scripture again. In the chance that you are...
That passage doesn't mean that faith alone is enough. Works, by themselves, aren't enough, because as mortal, finite, imperfect beings we're all sinful and fall short of the worthiness of God. This is why Jesus had to sacrifice Himself for our salvation. The Bible, numerous times, says that faith without works is dead, that it's not enough. We, as Christians, if we have faith, should be doing works as well, in accordance with God, for God, because God is with us. Here's some passages that talk about it:
James 2:14-26
Titus 2:7-8
1 Corinthians 4:2
2 Corinthians 5:10
Matthew 16:24-25
1 Corinthians 3:10-15