How do you interpret these passages? As in, what do you think they meant to the people they were originally addressed to and what are the modern day, real life applications to us?
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.'
-Matthew 5:38-48
Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
The Jews thought they were following the Law by hating their enemies because they had misinterpreted God's reasons for corporal punishment - squash the evil out from among you...but hatred is not a part of the original plan, only justice. I don't think it is wrong to seek justice through legal means, but why do we feel we need more than that? Shouldn't we be willing to seek the best for others, even if we are wronged, if we claim to be trying to be like God?
tricky. if we follow the letter of the law on this one, we would be broke, desperate beggars ourselves, who have no backbone. I think a passage like this would be counterbalanced by scripture like, "be wise as serpents." we shouldn't be blind and ignorant of the worldliness that surrounds us. rather, be different than the world. are we being hypocrites by not following more of the "letter of the law?" probably. we are all hypocrites to some extent. the phrase, "as depends on you," gives me pause. what does he mean by that?
overall, I've come to the conclusion (so far) that Christianity has a lot more to do with our attitudes than anything else. we aren't going to hell for what we do or fail to do as much as for the type of character we have sculpted within ourselves. the "fruits of the spirit" are not acts, but characteristics that cause action. actions such as those described in the passages above. but the strength of the character developed into one the grows "fruits of the spirit" is not a weak spined simpleton, but a very strong willed and wise individual. the attitude is completely different.
I also that Christianity is much simpler than we make it out to be. Too simple. It was too simple for the jews, for the gentiles, and for us. We are always trying to add complexity that is just not there. That inteferes much with our attempts to "discern" the Truth.
Good question. I need to give it some more thought.
Aaron, I don't consider you to be "urban-metro" In fact you and Holly are the least pretentious people I know. There was one homeless guy who had a great sense of humor outside the art institute, his discourse (aka- public rant) on politics was hillarious! But I did have a good time, thanks for all the help with directions
Just so everyone knows, if I’m ever sarcastic to you it does not mean that I hate you. I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ and I’m actually quite optimistic and accepting of others to an extreme degree. Ask Holly.
Do politics sometimes cause un-Christian attitudes and behavior, and lead it irrational and oversimplified thoughts? Does affiliating yourself with a party or certain person tempt you to defend their every policy, even if it's unethical? And also tempt you to be unethical to the opposition? All politicians lie and mislead and use unethical tactics. Shouldn't politics be considered worldliness, and therefore, in the interest of being in the world but not of it, wouldn't it be wise for Christians to limit their involvement? Just wondering what everyone thinks.
That was the philosophy of many restorationist preachers, David Lipscomb being one. Christians should have no involvement with government. The late Homer Hailey believed that if we preached the gospel causing the lost to be converted this would take care of the nation's needs, not government. Government/politicians is/are not my savior but I live in a land where I do, by law, have a say and I say it. However, it is the soul of this people, not the government that will determine the fate of this nation. When the hearts of the people turn to evil so will the government. The people will get the government they deserve. Due to moral state of this nation we can't expect to deserve a good government. McCain will not solve our problems but Obama will be our Rehoboam and "chastise us with scorpions".
Politics is about government, and government IS the people. As Arsenal so very well pointed out, the hearts of people determine what kind of government we have. The solution is to change hearts by converting souls to Jesus. The kind of leader our nation has may determine our freedom to serve and worship God, so I believe it's acceptable for Christians to support a candidate (if there ever is one) who will help preserve tha freedom. However, everything we do should be done morally and ethically.
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13:1). The government exists by God's authority.
it's wayyy more fun if you look at politics like sports. in my opinion, no christian can be a packers fan or a white sox fan. Simply cannot. Yet it's important to get all huffed up about my love of the Bears and Cubs, and when the Bears and the Cubs win every single super bowl and world series, then jesus comes for his 1000 year reign and/or everyone becomes a bears/cubs fan.
i know the answers to all your questions though: yes. Unfortunately you did not define the terms 'irrational and oversimplified thoughts', 'unethical', and 'limit their involvement'- so a "liberal"(haha) amount of subjectivism has played a part in all responses. except mine, of course.
Saving souls is a Christian's predominate goal; however, that does not mean a Christian cannot "try to reform governmental systems." One does not exclude the other. One method of "reforming" government is by voting, and there is nothing unscriptural about doing so.
good point on don't vote don't complain, but my response is that as a christian i should not be complaining a whole lot about the government anyway, so i don't feel like i am giving up a huge right by not being able to complain through my subsequent lack of voting
factcheck.org points out lies of both Obama and McCain, and their running mates, and all political advertising. Does anyone know a better source for non-partisan factchecking? Or should I believe all advertising, rumors, e-mail forwards, and politicians words as the truth? I'm serious here. I want to vote and I need help.
Aaron, I don't have one source for checking out facts. I research what both sides are saying, as well as other information on the Net. For example, if you want to know if Obama's "spread the wealth" idea is Socialist or not, look up what Socialism is all about. That settles the argument.
Thanks for the info, Sonja. I've tried my best to factcheck factcheck.org and they seem to be impartial. They're pretty hard on Obama so I can't imagine them being in cahoots or anything. I've been trying to figure out who the most moral and intelligent candidate is. In the primaries I concluded it was Ron Paul and voted for him. Unfortunately he was laughed out of the race for daring to suggest that America cannot afford to be an empire anymore. I know Obama is more intelligent than McCain but I think they're equally immoral. I'm leaning towards Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution party candidate.
Factcheck is wrong. Got it. It stinks not being omniscient, eh? How do I know that factcheck's factcheckers aren’t wrong or biased? Everythings connected eventually. And we can never know everything about anything or anyone. Which is why elections are weird times. I was wrong to say that McCain is as immoral as Obama. Not that I think that’s impossible, tho. What I should have said is that I’m not voting for either because I think they’re both too immoral for me to vote for (McCain is an adulturer, supports an unjust war (matter of opinion, I know. I deal with everyone elses, too), probably only changed his rhetoric on abortion to get votes, ran a dirtier campaign, and it can be argued that Obama wanting to help the poor is a good moral thing (unless he has a sinister reason for doing so, but how do we know? blah)) Anyways, I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin, so chill. I leave it up to you to find out that he’s a serial killer. Just remember to check yer fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s fact checker’s facts.
United States House of Representatives
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008
Madame Speaker, only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent. It was most unfortunate that this monstrosity of a bill, loaded up with even more pork, was able to pass.
The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails.
One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place.
With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption.
The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt.
As usual, Congress has show itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed.
........
My next post will be about something different. Promise.
I am "Marvel", too. Right now I am reading "House of M." I have to say Wolverine is my overall favorite, followed by Cap (the dead one). I am wondering if they'll bring him back? Bucky just isn't the same... : ) Don't worry about the story review; I'm anxious to hear your comments, but really don't stress about it. My idea for the conflict is still evolving, so further work has been a little slow and subject to massive revision!
