In quoting the Word of God do Catholics want it both ways?

[NotWorthy]

Robert Heibel:

Who are you “man” to question God?

When Christ asks us to live a Christ-like life, we, being human, should ask, “Now, Lord, do you mean Christ-like in what you say? Or Christ-like in what you do?”

It’s all our little mortal minds can handle.

NotWorthy

 

[Trelow]

ahimsaman72:

Yes, friend, He told us to love our enemies. He didn’t tell us to let our enemies rape our women and kill them. And, you know, that’s only one verse out of thousands compiled in Scripture. We each have to take all Scripture and hash out the meaning to make sure we are interpreting correctly.

At some point you have to make the moral decision on innocent life versus non-innocent life. For example, in war usually nations do not target civilians - they target the opposing military - because by opposing the military they can defeat them and end the war - that’s the point - to end it. So, you protect civilians and innocents while subduing your enemy.

And again, you don’t have to kill the enemy. You only need to stop them from attacking you using various methods like I explained - be they stun guns (which do not seriously injure) or martial arts/self defense maneuvers. It’s about stopping them from hurting you and others - not about killing.

Peace…

And as a bonus, it’s better form a military perspective to wound the enemy than to kill them. It takes 3-4 people to take care of a wounded solider, but none to take care of the dead.

 

[johnshelby]

Semper Fi:

Yes, but it is also our duty to tell them when they are in error. Jesus never condemned violence for protecting yourself or your property, in fact he did just the opposite. We now have two conflicting issues, one with Scriptural support and one without. Therefore, we must let our brothers know when they are being misled.

God Bless.

you are exactly right… i stand corrected… (( much as it
pains me to say that to a marine… lol ))

i was maybe a little overzealous… because i can sympathize
with Mr. Heibel’s feelings…

and…
private revelation, is for the person who receives it… maybe
Mr. Heibel is going to say, what he has said to one person,
somewhere, someday, that will change that person, and
save a life…

but, if Mr. Heibel is saying that the Church’s teaching on this
is in error, then… i have to disagree…

 

[Vonier]

Retreating into “who are you to question God” doesn’t really make your point. In fact, it dodges the question. You’ve convinced yourself that your ability to stand by and watch the assault of your own wife would be fine proof of your fidelity to God. If I were your wife…never mind, she’s no doubt used to you.

 

[Shlemele]

Semper Fi:

Killing in self-defense is no sin at all, to say otherwise is heresy. Pacifism itself is a heresy. Jesus Himself says that He will return with a sword.

Him not us, God alone decides who is just and who is not so he is justified in returning with the sword. And what about the sermon on the mount? Turning the other cheek and all those instructions were given by God so how can you call it heresy? And arn’t we to be as “sheep among wolves”? I don’t know about you but sheep don’t seem like aggresive creatures to me (I donno, maybe that have a ravenous breed over there or somthing ).

 

[Trelow]

Shlemele:

Turning the other cheek …

Which cheek are you to turn? And what is the only reason why one would be hit in that cheek in a right handed culture?

here is a hint, it has naught to do with violence.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

And as a bonus, it’s better form a military perspective to wound the enemy than to kill them. It takes 3-4 people to take care of a wounded solider, but none to take care of the dead.

Yes, good point! In our personal lives and in our relationships with others the goal should be to maximize our helping of others and minimize our harming of them. None of us are perfect, but if our intentions are to save and protect then we will have done what God would expect. If, however, we stood by and did not reach out to those in harm’s way, then we are responsible (indirectly) for the outcome.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

Which cheek are you to turn? And what is the only reason why one would be hit in that cheek in a right handed culture?

here is a hint, it has naught to do with violence.

I would be interested in hearing your analysis of this verse of Scripture - you know I’ve read it a million times and historically only seen one possible view and would like to see other’s viewpoints.
Thanks…

 

[Trelow]

ahimsaman72:

I would be interested in hearing your analysis of this verse of Scripture - you know I’ve read it a million times and historically only seen one possible view and would like to see other’s viewpoints.
Thanks…

For your right cheek to be struck by a right handed man, it would be a blow from the left. Now would this come form the left hand, or the right? If from the left hand, then yes, it could be a physical assault, but why then would Jesus have specified the right cheek? To come from the right hand however it would be a backhanded slap. One of the most grievous insults in eastern culture (most any culture really).

At insult and ridicule we should turn cheek and suffer it form the sake of the Kingdom. There is no other explanation to me for Jesus specification of the right cheek.

Augistine has another similar, take.
letter 138 St. Augstine:

1. Moreover, if we pay attention to the words of the precept, and consider ourselves under bondage to the literal interpretation, the right cheek is not to be presented by us if the left has been smitten. “Whosoever,” it is said, "shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; " but the left cheek is more liable to be smitten, because it is easier for the right hand of the assailant to smite it than the other. But the words are commonly understood as if our Lord had said: If any one has acted injuriously to thee in respect of the higher possessions which thou hast, offer to him also the inferior possessions, lest, being more concerned about revenge than about forbearance, thou shouldst despise eternal things in comparison with temporal things, whereas temporal things ought to be despised in comparison with eternal things, as the left is in comparison with the right. This has been always the aim of the holy martyrs; for final vengeance is righteously demanded only when there remains no room for amendment, namely, in the last great judgment. Rut meanwhile we must be on our guard, lest, through desire for revenge, we lose patience itself – a virtue which is of more value than all which an enemy can, in spite of our resistance, take away from us. For another evangelist, in recording the same precept, makes no mention of the right cheek, but names merely the one and the other; so that, while the duty may be somewhat more distinctly learned from Matthew’s gospel, he simply commends the same exercise of patience.

Wherefore a righteous and pious man ought to be prepared to endure with patience injury from those whom he desires to make good, so that the number of good men may be increased, instead of himself being added, by retaliation of injury, to the number of wicked men.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

ahimsaman72:

Yes, good point! In our personal lives and in our relationships with others the goal should be to maximize our helping of others and minimize our harming of them. None of us are perfect, but if our intentions are to save and protect then we will have done what God would expect. If, however, we stood by and did not reach out to those in harm’s way, then we are responsible (indirectly) for the outcome.

Peace…

(Matthew 6:9-10) “So you should pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be held holy, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.”

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Why is everyone even arguing with this guy?
He’s here solely to prove that he is “right” and we are “wrong.”
God doesn’t give private revelations to individuals that are binding on all Christians, since the last public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle. Perhaps Mr. Heibel DID receive a word from the Lord that HE must not hurt anyone ever. Perhaps that is God’s will for HIM. But Mr. Heibel has no moral right to try to impose his private views on every other Christian. And also, like an earlier poster said, not all “voices” are from God, even if that “voice” claims to be Jesus. If a “voice” speaks to you and contradicts the magisterium of the Church, that “voice” is not from God, no matter how much you may think it is.
Love, Jaypeeto3

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Jaypeeto3:

Why is everyone even arguing with this guy?
He’s here solely to prove that he is “right” and we are “wrong.”
God doesn’t give private revelations to individuals that are binding on all Christians, since the last public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle. Perhaps Mr. Heibel DID receive a word from the Lord that HE must not hurt anyone ever. Perhaps that is God’s will for HIM. But Mr. Heibel has no moral right to try to impose his private views on every other Christian. And also, like an earlier poster said, not all “voices” are from God, even if that “voice” claims to be Jesus. If a “voice” speaks to you and contradicts the magisterium of the Church, that “voice” is not from God, no matter how much you may think it is.
Love, Jaypeeto3

And to you it doesn’t matter what the Word of God says either, right?

 

[Trelow]

Robert Heibel:

And to you it doesn’t matter what the Word of God says either, right?

Well shoot, I reckon I’ll go and bar-b-que my daughter for the Lord as well. Because hey, who needs any interpretation other than our own, right?

Judges 11: 30, 31, 34, 39 condensed for space.

[30] And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand,
[31] then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”

[34]
Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

[39] And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel

 

[Jaypeeto3]

And to you it doesn’t matter what the Word of God says either, right?

Okay, smartaleck, let me put it this way.
You are a mere layman. It is not your place as a mere layman to define for the entire Body of Christ what is the proper interpretation of the scriptures. The magisterium of the Holy Church has addressed this issue, and it disagrees with your view.
Jaypeeto3

 

[Subrosa]

Jaypeeto3:

Why is everyone even arguing with this guy?
He’s here solely to prove that he is “right” and we are “wrong.”
God doesn’t give private revelations to individuals that are binding on all Christians, since the last public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle. Perhaps Mr. Heibel DID receive a word from the Lord that HE must not hurt anyone ever. Perhaps that is God’s will for HIM. But Mr. Heibel has no moral right to try to impose his private views on every other Christian. And also, like an earlier poster said, not all “voices” are from God, even if that “voice” claims to be Jesus. If a “voice” speaks to you and contradicts the magisterium of the Church, that “voice” is not from God, no matter how much you may think it is.
Love, Jaypeeto3

Hola! Jaypeeto -

Everyone here knows Mr. Heibel has a personal agenda. He shows very fundimentalist views in his personal interpretation of scripture. It is a good thing that he came here. Now he can receive the truth and must justify his own actions and words.

The debating reveals the truth to Mr. Heibel. Remember, Jesus and scripture tell us many times, “Do not be afraid!” We cannot fear Mr. Heibel. Indeed, we are charged with showing him the truth. He, then, must make his decisions.

Subrosa

 

[Della]

Robert Heibel:

My pastor is Jesus and that is who I follow.

Well, he’s mine too, but if you can’t listen to those with more learning and experience in these matters, you aren’t listening to Jesus but only to yourself.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

For your right cheek to be struck by a right handed man, it would be a blow from the left. Now would this come form the left hand, or the right? If from the left hand, then yes, it could be a physical assault, but why then would Jesus have specified the right cheek? To come from the right hand however it would be a backhanded slap. One of the most grievous insults in eastern culture (most any culture really).

At insult and ridicule we should turn cheek and suffer it form the sake of the Kingdom. There is no other explanation to me for Jesus specification of the right cheek.

Augistine has another similar, take.

Hey, thanks for that insight!

Peace…

 

[Subrosa]

Robert Heibel:

And to you it doesn’t matter what the Word of God says either, right?

Do you suppose we should reinstitute slavery? The bible says it’s Ok…

1 Timothy
Chapter 61 Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Della:

Well, he’s mine too, but if you can’t listen to those with more learning and experience in these matters, you aren’t listening to Jesus but only to yourself.

Do you really think there is someone that has more knowledge and experience than Jesus? Gosh! Here all this time I thought He was the perfect teacher. Who do you suggest I should listen to?

 

[ahimsaman72]

(Matthew 6:9-10) “So you should pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be held holy, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.”

If you want to appeal to Scripture then here you are:

Exodus 18:4 - And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine **help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh: **

Exodus 23:5 - If thou see the *** of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

Deuteronomy 22:4 - Thou shalt not see thy brother’s *** or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: **thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. **

Deuteronomy 32:38 - Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection

1 Chronicles 12:21 - And they helped David against the band of the rovers: for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the host.

Luke 5:7 - And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

Philippians 4:3 - And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Now, if you are supposed to help your neighbor get his ox out of a hole, don’t you think (using reason) that God would want you to protect your wife from being raped and/or children killed?