HolidayBuyer's Guide

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Bible verses

by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 2:54 AM PDT

If display of bible verses is to be allowed, I would much prefer that it not be the Ten Commandments, which I think do not at all capture what is good about Christianity. If bible verses are to be displayed, I would much rather that the display be of verses such as the following, which speak to universal virtues that are shared by most other religions and which are grounded in love, a concept wholly missing from the Ten Commandments:

Love your enemy.

Turn the other cheek.

Feed the hungry (even if it is your enemy who is hungry).

Clothe the naked (or the more personal version, if the stranger is without a cost, give him yours).

Shelter the homeless.

Welcome the stranger (gee, you mean including illegal immigrants?)

Don't seek revenge.

Visit the imprisoned.

Take care of the widow.

Sell your wealth and give the proceeds to the poor.

But I really don't expect such verses to receive much attention. They make being a Christian way too difficult. And they don't make it nearly so easy to condemn others. They are okay on Sunday morning but not during the week.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Bible verses
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Bible verses
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Very Nice
by MKay / July 22, 2005 3:05 AM PDT
In reply to: Bible verses

May I add:
Love the children

Be kind to the other animals

Say a kind word or
Pass on a smile

Collapse -
What's Love Got To Do With It?
by duckman / July 22, 2005 4:21 AM PDT
In reply to: Bible verses

Honor thy mother and father. Love is an emotion and feeling, that's not what laws are based on.

Collapse -
Depends on what "law" you are talking about
by shaner7575 / July 22, 2005 5:02 AM PDT

John 13:34 (NKJV)
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

In other words, Love has Everything to do with it!

Collapse -
When most people felt good about slavery,
by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 6:10 AM PDT

it was okay in the law. When enough people started feeling bad about it, it was not okay in the law.

When rejection of slavery was only intellectual, nothing happened. When their emotions got involved, they did the protesting that resulted in the banning of slavery. Washington and Jefferson both rejected slavery intellectually, but they kept slaves because they didn't feel strongly enough about it. Same with civil rights. If poeple's emotions opposed the Iraq war, there wouldn't be one. Laws aren't effective unless they are favored by people's emotions.

Yes, laws are based on emotions and feelings. We don't enact laws that we don't like, that we don't feel good about.

Collapse -
This is laughable
by TONI H / July 22, 2005 9:09 PM PDT

>>>>> If poeple's emotions opposed the Iraq war, there wouldn't be one. Laws aren't effective unless they are favored by people's emotions.>>>>>

Perhaps the terrorists, who believe in a different God than Christians do and who have never treated their own people with love let alone the infidels, should be told that if we treat them with love they wouldn't have a reason to kill us (wide-sweeping 'us' term for other countries as well as ours) nor would they feel the need to kill their own (who happen to believe in the same God they do).

Turning the other cheek got more of us killed all over the world, grandpaw7.......how do you convince terrorists all over to also turn the other cheek and respect the rest of the world since we all have to exist in it?

Do you honestly believe that if innocent countries and citizens do nothing to stop the terrorists that your 'love' speech will do it instead? Remember that in order to have it work, both sides have to agree....and these terrorists haven't had any respect or love for the 'free world' since day one. It's their way or no way.

TONI

Collapse -
Hi, Toni
by grandpaw7 / July 23, 2005 12:25 AM PDT
In reply to: This is laughable

I'm so glad you enjoyed reading my post. I really love to make people laugh.

Bear in mind that I was only posting what the bible says. Don't ***** (well, I guess I have to say ''complain'') about me, ***** (well, I guess I have to say ''complain'') about the bible.

Your post involves the serious question of whether the bible is of any value to us, or whether it contains a recipe for disaster. It may well be that the best bet for Christians is to continue with the existing hypocrisy of just pretending to honor the bible while in fact ignoring it, or at least the disagreeable parts. I know I practiced a good deal of that hypocrisy myself back when I was more religious and thought that going to hell and disagreeing with the bible were synonymous. It is a lot easier now that I am only a quasi-Christian.

It's a tough question. Darned if I know the answer.

By the way, does it arouse laughter in you to think of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to the widow, loving your fellow man (oops, I mean person) and the like? They say that there is no accounting for a person's sense of humor.

I presume you are equally opposed to the Ten Commandments since if we do not kill, all that money we save by not having a military won't be of much use to us there in the gulag. And it doesn't even allow for lust in our hearts, and with the way girls dress these day, that's a tough one, even for an old man. However, before we discard the bible completely, remember that it does have that eye for an eye business, although putting out people's eyes is not a major goal of warfare.

Collapse -
The unfortunate part of your 'theory'
by TONI H / July 23, 2005 12:49 AM PDT
In reply to: Hi, Toni

is that it assumes that everyone world-wide is basically 'christian' at heart no matter what they actually call their religion, and therefore 'should' believe the same way.

Humanity is a better word to use world-wide rather than religion or The Ten Commandments.....if more people believed in HUMANITY towards each other, perhaps what you are saying would hold more weight.

Leave religion to the inner personal individual.....

TONI

Collapse -
Good Lord, Toni, what post are you replying to?
by grandpaw7 / July 23, 2005 1:14 AM PDT

What in the hell "theory" are you talking about, woman? You are going off half-cocked, attributing things to me that you have no basis for. Why is that?

What gives you the idea, other than an overactive and misplaced imaginaton, that I assume everyone is Christian or that I somehow want to ignore non-Christians?

It is really sickening to read replies such as yours that totally remake in their own image the post to which they are replying so they can conduct an unjustified attack on a poster.

Would it be beyond you to quote the language I used that you somehow think supports what you accuse me of? I won't hold my breath.

If you want to voice your opposition to posting any bible verses on government property, you should do that instead of making a gratuitous and erroneous attack on me.

Collapse -
If you see a 'conversational' tone of my post
by TONI H / July 23, 2005 2:01 AM PDT

to be an attack on you, you have more problems to deal with than just worrying about whether the Ten Commandments are in government buildings or if people should follow them and instead follow LOVE.

I happened to be agreeing with you, you paranoid person so stop looking for ghosts where there aren't any to exorsist out.

Instead of calling it LOVE, I called it HUMANITY....and the reason was because there are so many religions in the world that don't agree and don't see eye to eye that to have one specific religious 'set of rules' publicly displayed is the assumed 'theory' I mentioned. I was using YOU/YOUR as a general term and not you personally.

I'm outta here.....tired of dealing with cracker jacks looking to out gun the gunslinger in town. I have a pond to finish building and a phone call to make to my kid who is on duty on his ship in Pearl Harbor as they wait to leave to go to Iraq. MUCH MORE important priorities for me than worrying about how you're (and I mean YOU this time) gonna jump down my throat over nothing. I wasn't accusing you of doing anything......as far as I'm concerned, you're the only one being gratuitous and in error.

Jeeezzzzzzzzz.....You think you're the ONLY one who is sickened by some posts around here?

TONI

Collapse -
What you said is true.
by James Denison / July 23, 2005 2:31 AM PDT

Even in the OT there were rules for different situations, concerning if one was a citizen, or one was a foreignor, or one was an enemy, or criminal, or foreign government waging war against you. Even in the NT such distinctions are made.

2 Peter 2:12 - But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Jude 1:10 - But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.


You have to determine who is your "brother" and who is your "neighbor" and make differentiation between those who are your fellow citizens, and those who are an enemy bent upon your destruction. Even Jesus disciples had swords, small perhaps, for personal protection. The Apostle Paul traveled with soldiers for the protection they afforded against the criminal element that often attacked travelers.

Jesus had no problems with soldiers if they performed their tasks in a proper manner.

Luke 3:14 - And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

In Romans chapter 13 it's obvious there is a distinction between those who do good and the fate of those who do evil, and what the Islamic fanatics have been up to is definitely "evil".

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


You CAN have love toward your fellow man, but it is tempered with the realization that one must also be ready to deal with evil when it seeks to destroy you, your loved ones, your people, your nation. Such "brute beasts" are not our "neighbors" and deserve the sword.

Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Unfortunately it's not always possible to live in peace with others, certainly not when your destruction is their aim. Almost all the commandments and laws concerning "love thy neighbor" are concerned with how citizens and foreignors that live within one's country deal with each other. Most of the things taught in the NT were the same as the OT on how to deal with one's "neighbour", there was a different set of rules on how to deal with foreign countries, those with whom you were at war with. There were rules on proper treatment of POW's too. Unity and love for one's fellow citizens has nothing to do with defending one's self against enemies from outside, nor criminals from within a country. Some interesting word searches on certain words below, the number of times certain words are used in both Old and New Testaments.
==============================================
Search Results
"love" was found 645 times in 546 verses.

Search Results
"hate" was found 190 times in 179 verses.

Search Results
"enemy" was found 110 times in 109 verses.

Search Results
"friend" was found 107 times in 99 verses.

Collapse -
After the crack you made that
by TONI H / July 23, 2005 3:11 AM PDT
In reply to: What you said is true.

was deleted regarding the Idaho girl found after six weeks, James, you will never again have credibility with me regarding your Christianity. You are a hypocrite........

TONI

Collapse -
Transposed
by James Denison / July 23, 2005 4:14 AM PDT

There were two stories about the same time. One was the one about the Idaho girl the other about some young person getting lost in the woods and being found later. For some reason those two got transposed in my mind, and without reading the link, thinking it was someone who got lost in the woods, I made my comments. Later, after it had been removed, I came back and wondering why it was removed read the linked story. I was glad it was removed, and thank you.

Collapse -
You are a wee bit mixed up...
by Edward ODaniel / July 23, 2005 3:47 AM PDT
In reply to: Hi, Toni

as it was you who brought up slavery and you who is selective in biblical interpretation.

You refer to slavery and so does the bible and it is accepted and not condemned even in the new Testement although there are a couple hundred passages that can be construed as strongly advocating it.

You seem confused regarding the Civil War as well as regards Washington and Jefferson as far as slavery is concerned.

You now bring up the ten commandments without apparently actually understanding them (especially in regard to killing) as they apply to PEOPLE and not to the tribe. Refer to chapters and verses cited in http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=115664&messageID=1315332

Collapse -
I"ve got to hurry before I'm banned
by grandpaw7 / July 23, 2005 4:13 AM PDT

You say:

"You are a wee bit mixed up..."

I'm often mixed up, but would you mind saying about what?

"it was you who brought up slavery and you who is selective in biblical interpretation."

Yes, I brought up slavery; have I denied that or claimed it was someone else who brought it up?

Selective? You think the entire bible should be displayed on government property?

"You seem confused regarding the Civil War as well as regards Washington and Jefferson as far as slavery is concerned."

I'm often confused but you overlooked saying in what way you think I'm confused. But it would help if you went to the trouble of saying in what respect you think I am confused. Do you think I am wrong in saying that Washington and Jefferson recognized that slavery was wrong? Or in saying that they nonetheless had slaves? As to the Civil War, I made no mention of it; why do you?

"You now bring up the ten commandments without apparently actually understanding them (especially in regard to killing) as they apply to PEOPLE and not to the tribe."

By "understanding them" you mean agreeing with your understanding of them. That is true, I don't agree with your understanding.

Did I say that the Fifth Commandment applies to tribes? No, I didn't. However, unless you're talking about tribes of animals, tribes are make up of people; it follows that if you kill tribes you kill people. Don't you agree? However, I fail to comprehend what your point is in mentioning tribes.

I hope the foregoing is not too vehement and rude for you. I understand that some posters are pretty touchy about posters disagreeing with them and not apologizing for it.

Collapse -
So, after selling your possessions, are you now living in
by Kiddpeat / July 22, 2005 6:01 AM PDT
In reply to: Bible verses

a homeless shelter? Somehow, I think God got it right the first time. I tend to shy away from the idea that I'm smarter than Almighty God. Have you checked His answer to Job recently? Do you think Jesus was mistaken when he summarized the essence of the law;

Love God with everything you've got within you,
and your neighbor as yourself.

Somehow, your version forgets God. An oversight?

Collapse -
Reply to KidPeat
by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 6:27 AM PDT

I presume that you oppose feeding the poor, clothing the naked, loving your neighbor, ministering to the widow, comforting the afflicted, giving of your possessions to the poor, etc. And I presume you think that God approves of your attitude.

A lot of people don't practice these virtues, but not many outright oppose them as you do. Thank God.

What is your religous affliation anyhow? I've yet to run across a religion that supports your view.

Are there parts of the New Testament you agree with?

Collapse -
You presume wrong. The Old Testament is part of the Bible
by Kiddpeat / July 22, 2005 7:20 AM PDT
In reply to: Reply to KidPeat

also, and the two are not in conflict. Jesus taught us that the Old Testament has God's authority, and not the slightest part will pass away.

I notice you didn't respond to my question on wealth. Is that because you haven't sold everything you own?

I am basically in agreement with the reformed churches, and what is your religious affiliation? I've yet to run across a Christian who thinks God should be dropped out of the commandments.

Collapse -
KidPeat, it's like talking to a crazy person
by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 9:40 AM PDT

When I first read you post, I felt sure you had meant it for some other thread where it might be relevant. But, alas, I think you really meant it for me.

You say: "God got it right the first time". Got what right? I didn't say a thing about God getting anything wrong. Why do you say things like that? Have you been drinking?

You say: "I tend to shy away from the idea that I am smarter than Almighty God". Good for you, KidPeat, I think you may be on the right path. But I said nothing at all to suggest that I consider myself smarter than God. Why do you say things like that?

You say: "Have you checked His answer to Job recently?" No, Kidpeat, I haven't. But does His answer make it wrong to display those verses I listed? I wish you would stop hanging out in left field and try to make some sense.

You say: "Do you think Jesus was mistaken when he summarized the essence of the law?" Man, you are driving me even more nuts. Point out to me, please, KidPeat where you think I said, suggested, or inferred that Jesus was mistaken. Geez, do you ever try to be relevant?

And the kicker: "Your version leaves out God". Man, you are one for the record book. I quote a few lines from the New Testament and you accuse me of thereby leaving out God. Would you mind thinking before you spout? How in the name of all that is holy did you arrive at the absurd conclusion that I am leaving out God?

You ask if I have sold everything. No, KidPeat, I haven't. I would have thought it unnecessary to explain that I was not saying anything about the way I have lived; I was, and I thought this was pretty clear in my post, simply noting what Jesus had said in the bible. Get it? Some people take that verse to me that we should not be greedy and should share our good fortunes with our neighbor. Have you scratched these verses out of you bible?

You say "I've yet to run across a Christian who thinks God should be dropped out of the commandments?" God, give strength! What is that about? Did you mean that for some other thread where it might have some relevance? Do you think somehow that by listing verses from the New Testament I am advocating that God be dropped out of the commandments? Boy, I just don't get how you think.

I will give this to you, KidPeat. You indeed are the king of non-sequiturs. I?ve never seen anything like it. You seem to think that logic and rationality have no place in our thinking.

But, let me ask you a serious question: do you really "think" that way, or were you just putting on? If that is the way you "think", have you talked with your doctor about it?

Collapse -
Perhaps you are not looking at, or thinking about, what you
by Kiddpeat / July 22, 2005 2:09 PM PDT

are writing. I can't guess what you are thinking. I can only go with what you say. Consider:

I would much rather that the display be of verses such as the following, which speak to universal virtues that are shared by most other religions and which are grounded in love, a concept wholly missing from the Ten Commandments:

Love your enemy.

Turn the other cheek.

Feed the hungry (even if it is your enemy who is hungry).

Clothe the naked (or the more personal version, if the stranger is without a cost, give him yours).

Shelter the homeless.

Welcome the stranger (gee, you mean including illegal immigrants?)

Don't seek revenge.

Visit the imprisoned.

Take care of the widow.

Sell your wealth and give the proceeds to the poor.


Perhaps you weren't suggesting 10 new commandments, but it sure looks that way to me. Notice your preface which I highlighted;

love, a concept wholly missing from the Ten Commandments

Pardon me, but it sure reads like you're suggesting improvements in the original Ten commandments, and pointing to an important factor which is missing from them; love. Since you say God missed love when He gave the commandments, surely you see that you're suggesting improvements to His version. That makes you smarter than God, or, at least, puts you in the position of questioning His judgement. That brings in Job where God addressed the question. Perhaps you should see what He said?

You surely know that the first four of the 10 Commandments, beginning with the first;

Ex 20:2-3 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. "You shall have no other gods before me. NIV

speak of God. Maybe I missed it, but, in your version, none do. That is why I said you left God out. Did you intend that what you wrote somehow speaks of God? If so, perhaps you can explain how you intended that.

You say the Commandments are missing love. Jesus, in summarizing the Old Testament law, spoke exclusively of love for God and your neighbor. Aren't you saying that Jesus was wrong?

Finally, you are presumably teaching what we should do. One thing you said we should all do is;

Sell your wealth and give the proceeds to the poor.

When I asked if you had done this, I was asking if you practice what you are preaching that everyone else should do. You aren't. That should be enough said.

In the course of all your comments, you managed to slip in several attacks like 'Have you been drinking?'. I guess love is another thing you don't practice? I'm not sure, but perhaps you should think more before you post.

Collapse -
What I am saying about the Ten Commandments
by grandpaw7 / July 23, 2005 1:01 AM PDT

is that they say nothing about love, or about feeding the poor, or about clothing the naked, etc.

It is frustrating to see a reply which does not say anything relevant to the post to which it is a reply, but does claim that the post says or infers things which it does not say or infer. Noenetheless, you are right. It was wrong of me to make snide comments such as ''have you been drinking?'' I apologize for that.

If you think that because I have not sold all of my possessions and given the proceeds to the poor, I am disqualified from mentioning the bible verse which seems to call for this, that is your right.

I presume that you also think that I had no business quoting the verses about feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visitng the prisoners, sheltering the homeless, etc. since I have passed by poor, homeless and hungry people without feeding or sheltering them.

Boy, you really want to narrow the list of people who are qualified to quote those verses. I hope you get the word out to the preachers and evangelicals. If you do, Sunday morning TV would be more enjoyable.

Collapse -
You can quote verses all you like as long as you are not
by Kiddpeat / July 23, 2005 3:31 AM PDT

taking them out of context. However, stringing some verses together to rewrite the Ten Commandments is not only taking them out of context, its arrogantly assuming the right to edit the text. I prefer the text the way God arranged it.

Nothing prevents you from advocating for the feeding of the poor, clothing the naked, etc. However, if you do that, you should probably be quite sure that YOU are feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc. BTW, when was the last time you visited someone in prison? When was the last time you invited a homeless person into your home, and let them live with you for an extended period? It is quite easy to fall into hyprocracy especially when you engage in judging and condemning others.

One difference I've noticed between liberals and conservatives although I have no idea which camp you're in. Liberals love to feed the poor with other people's money. Conservatives feed the poor out of their own pocket, and don't say much about it.

Collapse -
Holy Ramblings
by James Denison / July 23, 2005 4:34 AM PDT

I've noted a few phrases of your holy ramblings to Kiddpete and feel they could bear some discussion. I've bolded your expressions.

"Why do you say things like that? Have you been drinking?"

Have you?

"I wish you would stop hanging out in left field and try to make some sense."

Baseball's a really great game, isn't it?

"Man, you are driving me even more nuts."

You said it, not me. Wink

"Geez, do you ever try to be relevant?"

Subjectively speaking, that's not always easy to do, depending on the variables presented.

"Man, you are one for the record book."

Would that be the "Book of Life?"

"Would you mind thinking before you spout?"

"Fore! Incoming! Look out! Duck!" Sometimes one feels a need to react instinctively.

"Have you scratched these verses out of you bible?"

Is this a common occurence among people you've encountered?

"Boy, I just don't get how you think."

You said it. Is this before or after "spouting"?

"If that is the way you "think", have you talked with your doctor about it?"

Might you suggest one you have experience with?

Collapse -
Hi, Grandpaw
by Angeline Booher / July 22, 2005 7:41 AM PDT
In reply to: Reply to KidPeat

I can stand correcyed, but the meaning I got from your post was that "love" (some translations say "charity") would be an appropriate reminder.

And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love"(cf 1Cor 13:1-13).

I would like to add the Beatutudes, whether from Matthew 5: 2-12, or Luke 6: 20-26. I always liked those passages, and that they were "reported" by two authors.

" The Beatitudes do not describe many separate individuals, but rather the characteristics of those who are deemed blessed by God. Each of the blessed individuals are generally not considered blessed according to worldly standards, but we see, with a heavenly perspective, they truly are blessed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

You are correct in how hard it is to follow New Testament teachings. I fail every day.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Yes, love
by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 9:19 AM PDT
In reply to: Hi, Grandpaw

I was suggesting, Angeline, that I think it would be more useful to remind people that love of neighbor means doing the kinds of "things" those verses speak of. I think that would be of more benefit than reminding them to go to church on Sunday, not kill anyone, etc.

However, for the benefit of people like KidPeat, I want to make it clear that I think it is good to go to church on Sunday, refrain from killing people, etc. It's just that a person can obey all of the ten commndments and still do nothing for his neighbor.

Collapse -
What the hell ?
by DaveWayne / July 22, 2005 8:11 PM PDT
In reply to: Yes, love

However, for the benefit of people like KidPeat, I want to make it clear that I think it is good to go to church on Sunday, refrain from killing people, etc.

does going to church on Sunday and killing people got to do with this post?

Collapse -
The Nose
by James Denison / July 23, 2005 4:38 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes, love

Sometimes keeping one's nose out of one's neighbor's business is doing more for him/her than you could ever realize. Have you asked your neighbors if they might feel the same?

Collapse -
Assumptions
by James Denison / July 23, 2005 4:20 AM PDT
In reply to: Reply to KidPeat

Why do you make assumptions about Kiddpete? What evidence have you provided to back up such assumptions? None that I see. Therefore such assumptions must be discounted by me, and probably other readers.

Collapse -
There was a time when religious law
by Steven Haninger / July 22, 2005 10:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Bible verses

was woven deeply into the secular law and crimes against it received punishment accordingly. One of the Ten Commandments was vigorously enforced...that being that one shall not bear false witness against their neighbor. If you accused someone of a crime, you had better be proven to be correct in your accusation or your punishment would be as bad or worse that that which would be doled out for the crime you suggested. Try that idea in today's legal atmosphere.;)

Collapse -
Try these for size...
by Edward ODaniel / July 22, 2005 2:27 PM PDT
In reply to: Bible verses

In the beatitudes, Jesus says "Blessed are the peacemakers".

To put that in its proper context though, that same Jesus told His disciples "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one"(Luke 22:36).

Christians recognize that all of Scripture(both Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God(2 Tim 3:16).

The Bible even acknowledges that there is "a time to kill"(Eccles. 3:3).

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. But--it was always with the recognition that the goal was "peace".

Claiming that all that was preached was cheek turning is fraudulent prevarication.

Collapse -
Right on, Edward
by grandpaw7 / July 22, 2005 10:46 PM PDT
In reply to: Try these for size...

However, I find myself wondering if you are responding to some post on this thread or just making a general observation. grandpaw

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE 2017

Cameras that make great holiday gifts

Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.