dagblog - Comments for "Of Papacies and Powerpoints"

Moat, this is a thought

Resistance — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:01:18 +0000

In reply to Not accepting Paul's writings

Moat, this is a thought provoking comment. I don't want to reply in haste and even still, my comment may be misunderstood.

My first quick thought, I am reminded as Christians, to let Gods own words tell the truth. (The real story?) and Not to leave it to men in sheep clothing (the cloth) to cherry pick. To make inferences, not supported by the whole of the facts.

As in a court of law today, to arrive at the whole truth, as opposed to 1/2 truths; as I'm sure you know 1/2 truths serve a purpose.

The record as a whole, should be read, to get the proper interpretation.

Example: Does God really torture non- believers?

Not accepting Paul's writings

moat — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:43:14 +0000

In reply to I have met people who don't

Not accepting Paul's writings can be more than a convenient narrative to escape an uncomfortable truth. It can be part of a testimony to a sincere belief. One that differs in important ways from what other people believe.

The differences are expressed in articles of faith but also in principles of action. Different people making different decisions because of different understandings of what their belief is asking of them.

Authority has come from the insistence upon allowing only one narrative to tell the truth. Centuries of trademark wars have been fought over control of the brand. Many of the losers lost hard.

If the spiritual liberty you speak of up-thread dispenses with priests and yet still claims ownership of the one true story, the Papal See is not abandoned so much as relocated into the center of each believer of the story.

What I've been thinking is

Aaron Carine — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:34:57 +0000

In reply to IMHO It is an endorsement of

What I've been thinking is that if scripture allows us to defend ourselves against private citizens, it doesn't seem fair if we aren't also allowed to fight back when it's a state that's coming after us. Peter could be said to have used the sword in defense--defense of Jesus, at least, and perhaps in his own defense.

IMHO It is an endorsement of

Resistance — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:43:51 +0000

In reply to I admit I didn't take the

IMHO It is an endorsement of non - violence, as respects taking it to aggressiveness.

Proactive defense is not aggressive behavior.

Knowing not to walk down a dark alley in a strange area, is proactive defense.

An aggressive spirit would walk down the alley, thinking "Bring it on"

Carrying with the intent to protect, is proactive defense.

Carrying and seeking out, to purposely cause harm, is aggressive

Fending off an attack by a wild beast (or men of beastly qualities) is not aggressive behavior, it is defending oneself to avoid bodily injury.

Once the criminal realizes, you're armed and he runs away, an aggressive spirit would be a person who successfully protects himself, then pursues the assailant.

IMHO Turning the other cheek would mean, I knew the criminal intended to cause me harm and now that the tables are turned, what will I do? Will I return his badness with some of my own? Will I give chase down the alley?

Aaron You can have all the knowledge and truth, but without faith, what good is it?

Why would the millions, who don't have faith in Jesus, listen to those who ask WWJD, when it comes to disarming themselves and to be left unprotected?

These same folks who ask WWJD, don't care to obey him in other aspects of their lives, except when Jesus' words can be used to fit their desires. Jesus would be for gun control; is that all they know or think they know?

I have had fun with this exercise.

Maybe because serious people

Resistance — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:42:24 +0000

In reply to Agreed 100% AA, and yet

Maybe because serious people take me seriously?

Yet you find fault with them? Did it ever occur to you, it might be you, unable to handle serious matters, unable to engage in an intelligent discussion, other than, insulting the commoners?

I admit I didn't take the

Aaron Carine — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:37:57 +0000

In reply to Are you really suggesting, to

I admit I didn't take the turn the other cheek thing literally, to mean that you should only endure slaps and nothing worse. I thought it was an endorsement of non-violence.

Maybe it wasn't, though.

Agreed 100% AA, and yet

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 14:01:56 +0000

In reply to There's more applicable in

Agreed 100% AA, and yet people take him seriously anyway. *smh

Keep in mind though; that if

Resistance — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:54:38 +0000

In reply to Okay, but some(probably not

Keep in mind though; that if people had the faith of Jesus, they wouldn't need to carry.

For the billions about to face tribulations, as has not been seen before; Its going to take a lot of faith to escape. If they haven't the faith, they might think about carrying, Because it's going to get real bad and ugly, like it might have been when the doors to the ark were closed and the water rising.

Okay, but some(probably not

Aaron Carine — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:57:59 +0000

In reply to Your scripture applies to

Okay, but some(probably not Jesus) wouldn't have regarded Peter as the aggressor, because he was protecting his master from bad guys(bad guys that were agents of the state. Paul did say to respect the authority of magistrates, although not, of course, to obey them when they ordered you to sacrifice).

Are you really suggesting, to

Resistance — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 07:08:47 +0000

In reply to There's more applicable in

Are you really suggesting, to the millions without faith in god, a slap is the same as someone trying to kill you?

Everyone should know; "An eye for an eye" is improper conduct for a Christian, because it signifies revenge, not protection.

To seek revenge, makes the person an aggressor. Christians are to "be peaceable, as far as it depends upon them". Christians are told "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"

The aggressor is condemned in the Bible, not the one protecting his life.

If you give the robber or violent man your coat or shirt you can replace your coat

But if a crazy man is trying to take your life; you really believe your supposed to give it ?

You really believe "Love for enemies" is the same as laying kisses, on the one stabbing you?