The Bible does not condemn self defense

Of course though all the words we are using are English. You are talking three different languages here so there will be nuances that don't translate into English so we can't say there is any difference.

I think that is true and not true. There is always a way to translate meanings from one language to another, but we remain at the mercy of the translator's knowledge of both languages, and their willingness to be as exact as possible. Or not.
 
He seemed pretty reasonable. His biggest concern was a possible invasion by the Duke of Jupiter.
One of the Jesus' tried to cast out demons from all of us.

Yes, I saw that on the news, and how the Duke and his evil forces were defeated by the lack of a strong gravity on Mars; it seems every time they took a step, they soared into the sky and were annihilated by Mar's weak, but under the circumstances, quite effective air defense artillery. Quite the feat as it turned out. :):joyful:



Nice place. I absolutely adore the architecture in Europe.

Here's one of the places Sue and I stayed when we were in England last.
View attachment 19353

We were married on the battlements, above the portcullis.

A marriage is always special, but that must really be a special memory.
 
The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.


That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.
I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your lack of understanding literature (religious or not) or disappointed that this thread still is kinda active. If the bible were meant to be taken completely literal you'd find large gaps of logic. Like, a lot of the bible has inconsistencies with science. Particularly "Noah's ark" which is debated to be either symbolic or outright ludicrous. Most literature doesn't tell you not to take it literally; it's implied. Also, your argument has a fallacy. It's called the true scotsman fallacy", you can't say "unless you take it literally you don't TRULY believe in it." How are you to claim what people have to do to believe? The bible doesn't say "DON'T LOOK FOR SUBTLE SYMBOLISM OR ELSE YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC."
I'm not even a christian or a catholic, but I think you should definitely learn some things... No, a lot about literature. Religious or not.
 
The Bible gives a wide breadth of opinion on the use of violence . . . which makes sense, given the wide breadth of authors. Jesus says to turn the other cheek and corrects his followers when they draw swords, but he also commanded his followers to buy swords in the first place (Luke 22:36), and he whipped people out of the Temple. The OT says not to murder, but it also says God commanded the Israelites to kill unarmed women and children during warfare upon occasion (1 Samuel 15:2-3). It would be difficult to use the Bible to derive a complete and coherent doctrine on the use of violence.
 
I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your lack of understanding literature (religious or not) or disappointed that this thread still is kinda active.

This thread was inactive for almost half a year until you reactivated it with your post.
 
DIVINE INTERVENTION

03281ce4ae978a42f1da0921423a0e3e.jpg


STOP POSTING NOW!!!!!!!!
 
Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.
 
Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.
It was meant as an inoffensive J O K E.

Do you not think that people on here take everything a little too seriously at times?
 
It was meant as an inoffensive J O K E.

Do you not think that people on here take everything a little too seriously at times?

No because if it's meant jokingly they put a little smiley face on. We have little emoticons to help with judging how to take what is being said. ;)
 
My God, is humour so difficult for you that you have to sign post it. Is a picture or a well known transvestite with a caption not sufficient for you to judge?
 
Reviving a dead thread is one thing. It might be a silly thing to do, it might be a great thing to do.
But reviving a dead thread and turning it into an argument about something wholly off-topic? Not a good idea. You might find the moderation team intervening, if that were to happen.
I'm just saying...
 
My God, is humour so difficult for you that you have to sign post it. Is a picture or a well known transvestite with a caption not sufficient for you to judge?

When there's only the written word and there's no facial expressions, body language or tone of voice to judge how to take the comments, it's often easier to put a little emoticon to signpost how it's meant. It may come across as being obvious but better that than misunderstandings.

I'm afraid I have no idea who the person in the picture is.
 
After 30 pages of posts I would have thought the subject had been done to death and a little humour was more than overdue. But hey ho.

I wasn't the one who resurrected it by the way.
 
When there's only the written word and there's no facial expressions, body language or tone of voice to judge how to take the comments, it's often easier to put a little emoticon to signpost how it's meant. It may come across as being obvious but better that than misunderstandings.

I'm afraid I have no idea who the person in the picture is.
Probably better left that way, but he/she was a well known entertainer named Devine. It was really just a throwaway comment and in no way intended to upset anybody, rather just to amuse.
 
After 30 pages of posts I would have thought the subject had been done to death and a little humour was more than overdue. But hey ho.

I wasn't the one who resurrected it by the way.


There was actually plenty of humour in the thread, it wasn't as heavy as you may think. Humour also depends on context and whether people have the same sense of humour as well as understanding the cultural references because if you don't the humour just goes straight over your head. I'm not sure you can come on and say that the thread has been done to death, not really your judgement to make.
 
Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.

Im not telling anybody they shouldn't post, or for that matter revive old threads. Breaking Allen was disappointed with a thread being still kinda active and I was simply pointing out that the thread had been inactive for close to half a year. Of course, if somebody posts on it the thread will become active again. Nowhere did I say that Breaking Allen or anyone else shouldn't post here. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top