I'll only quote an user who have a good insight on the context of these specifics verses found in the Holy Scripture. >"offer no resistance" is a bad translation of the Greek word ἀντιστῆναι. ἀντιστῆναι means to stand in opposition, it derives from military usage. "Do not square off against an evildoer" would be a better translation. "Resist" in English implies all methods, the original Greek implied only foregoing physically forceful resistance. The three examples that follow show you how, as Christians, we are supposed to resist an evildoer, as opposed to "squaring off against" them: >1)TURN THE OTHER CHEEK: Backhands were the way to dominate a wife or slave. Open-handed slaps were a challenge to an equal. Hitting left-handed was unthinkable, social condemnation would fall on the hitter. So, by turning the other cheek your assailant must either: be ostracized, stop hitting you, or acknowledge you as an equal. You've won. >2) GIVE HIM YOUR CLOAK TOO- This was a reference Jews would've understood. Exodus 22:26 reads - If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. It was to shame the creditor who was demanding your clothes by reminding him and anyone watching that God will hear your cries. >3) GO THE EXTRA MILE - This is a reference to the Roman law of impressment. A Roman soldier traveling in a subdued country could demand any civilian carry his pack for one mile. If, however, he made them carry it further than one mile, he could be beaten severely for it. Thus, by attempting to go the 2nd mile, the soldier is placed in the comical position of having to beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and get the wrong idea. Christ doesn't want us to be doormats, he wants us to prevail against evil. Don't fight evil on its own terms - that's the message.
And citing the Catechism >2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 >2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
Bentley Sullivan
Sup Forums should have more threads like this. I know you said an user said it but do u know his sources ?
Oliver Watson
>2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. >2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
Adam Mitchell
>2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Where are Christians and Pagans ? Normally they fight each other for less than that. However I don"t want to cause a fuss, just a debate between men.
Charles Howard
Go to the site image related, there are debates of this kind ( should or should not Christians autodefend or turn the cheek)
Camden Wood
Checked and yes I lurk often there
Nathaniel Perry
i don t know why they dont let me type it.
Jordan Williams
It's censored by Sup Forums
Michael Harris
Holy bump
Colton Campbell
If christcucks want to push their religion as a part of white nationalism, it needs to be reformed.
Noah Lee
if you want your religion the withe man`s religion you must abandon your religion first
Lucas Wright
Wat?
Asher Ward
Sorry but I don't understand too (be watchful, he is an Australian)
Jack Adams
There is no such thing as white nationalism in Christianity. All are welcome. Christianity changes with nothing. The churches need to get their shit together.
Aiden Smith
Yes. That's why I'm saying that the Christians that seem to think that Christianity has some kind of role in white nationalism need to work on a reformation so it actually support white identity
Gavin Baker
For a moment i thought you were challenging Christian values. Christian teachings don`t always go along with the teachings of the church.
Cameron Cook
I'm saying that Christianity is useless for white nationalism in its current form. What do you even consider to be Christian values?
Brayden Evans
The Bible as the only source of belief (alongside the historical documents and the contexts). I am catholic but i do not agree with the praying to saints, i am ok with helping black countries have educated people but i am not ok with European immigration, i am ok with baptising a baby but i am not ok with the rosary. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we have to accept all religions as methods of praying to a god. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we have to love islam or any other religion. We just have to accept it. What i mean by acceptance is not that we need muslims in our countries but accepting the fact that they believe wrong.
Christopher James
Wrong. Western civilization as we all know it was directly formed as a result of Christianity
Owen Johnson
Western civilization was up until 1950 (or 1970) after that it was downhill.
Joseph Parker
The bible was written by men. There's no reason that you wouldn't add to it. Why can't we add a new testament? Western civilisation started with Rome and Rome wasn't Christian until its dieing days
Hudson Lewis
You can't understand Christianity until you understand the culture and values of the time.
Modern (((Christianity))) is little more than dressed up cultural Marxism. I.e. The antithesis of actual Christian thought.
Easton Bailey
you are aware that 99.99% of christians are not aware of this and would reject it if you tried to enlighten them?
Whatever the "real" interpretations of the bible is, there a million different ones at this point and they all differ at the core. Christianity BECAME a cucked religion. Maybe it wasnt always.
Luke Foster
You cannot add or remove anything from The Bible. Indeed it was written by men but God is not something you can just simply change. If He wanted the Bible this way He got it. *Western civilization had it`s roots in the Roman and Greek civilization.
David Morgan
Why can't you? It was done by the people in Rome once, why not again?
