But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
It's the new testament so it's not reasonable to hold them to it as they have an actual different religion.
this however is in the old testament
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and accepting no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and widow, and He loves the foreigner, giving him food and clothing. So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
You’re right that several passages absolutely contradict their beliefs, but I used to be Evangelical and the sort of fundamentalists that support Rittenhouse really aren’t phased by any of this. They just claim the first one is specifically referring to insults and non-threatening violence, and therefore should be responded to with humility and grace, because being slapped is a painful insult and not a dangerous attack. They then point to all the times God tells people to buy swords and kill people to show that obviously God has no problem with murder in “self defense”.
And for the second, they believe that God is all-loving and that He chooses to kill people and torture them for eternity if they don’t literally beg His forgiveness before dying, so they see no conflict in loving someone while murdering them. Or as my parents are fond of saying, “We love you unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean we have to like you.”
Pointing out their hypocrisy and contradictory beliefs is still fun and all, I just don’t want people to think that fundies are unaware of these passages or anything. Christians have been twisting their Scriptures to justify their violence for around 1,500 years now, so simple gotchas like this don’t tend to do much.
On the other hand it can be embarrassing and it's not an argument they can immediately dismiss out of hand it sort of forces them to engage with you and it helps make the case to anyone who's on the fence nearby. Which if you're arguing with chuds is generally the goal
I agree somewhat, but in my personal experience they usually love the opportunity to move the conversation away from concrete details of the subject at hand (like the facts of the Rittenhouse case) and onto Biblical interpretation instead. They’re experts at the theological equivalent of pigeon chess, get dopamine from defending Christ online, and think that people giving them shit for it are just getting them eternal rewards in Heaven. Or at least that’s basically how it was for me when I was an young Evangelical chud.
That said, I do think it’s definitely useful when you want a chud to shut up about something and spend all their time writing bullshit about theology instead.
This passage owns when you add in context. "Turning the other cheek" is some complex Roman social thing where if you hit someone a certain way it says you view them as an equal, so you're basically forcing them to look you in the eye.
The shirt/coat thing is shaming people for abusing the legal system. Something about how you can't legally sue for certain posessions and turning over your coat makes them look like a bastard.
And the go to miles thing is because legionaires could force you to carry their kit for one mile. Going two would shame them and make them look bad.
It's all ways for people with little social standing and power to punch up.
God's given right to self defence:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Wonder if Shapiro, Prager etc. consider this as part of their "Judaeo-Christian" values/heritage.
It's the new testament so it's not reasonable to hold them to it as they have an actual different religion.
this however is in the old testament
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and accepting no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and widow, and He loves the foreigner, giving him food and clothing. So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
God sounds like an eight year old.
it probably sounded cooler in Hebrew
:trump-anguish:
There was a lot of competition for the title at the time so they wanted to make sure everyone knew that their guy was the guy.
You’re right that several passages absolutely contradict their beliefs, but I used to be Evangelical and the sort of fundamentalists that support Rittenhouse really aren’t phased by any of this. They just claim the first one is specifically referring to insults and non-threatening violence, and therefore should be responded to with humility and grace, because being slapped is a painful insult and not a dangerous attack. They then point to all the times God tells people to buy swords and kill people to show that obviously God has no problem with murder in “self defense”.
And for the second, they believe that God is all-loving and that He chooses to kill people and torture them for eternity if they don’t literally beg His forgiveness before dying, so they see no conflict in loving someone while murdering them. Or as my parents are fond of saying, “We love you unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean we have to like you.”
Pointing out their hypocrisy and contradictory beliefs is still fun and all, I just don’t want people to think that fundies are unaware of these passages or anything. Christians have been twisting their Scriptures to justify their violence for around 1,500 years now, so simple gotchas like this don’t tend to do much.
On the other hand it can be embarrassing and it's not an argument they can immediately dismiss out of hand it sort of forces them to engage with you and it helps make the case to anyone who's on the fence nearby. Which if you're arguing with chuds is generally the goal
I agree somewhat, but in my personal experience they usually love the opportunity to move the conversation away from concrete details of the subject at hand (like the facts of the Rittenhouse case) and onto Biblical interpretation instead. They’re experts at the theological equivalent of pigeon chess, get dopamine from defending Christ online, and think that people giving them shit for it are just getting them eternal rewards in Heaven. Or at least that’s basically how it was for me when I was an young Evangelical chud.
That said, I do think it’s definitely useful when you want a chud to shut up about something and spend all their time writing bullshit about theology instead.
This passage owns when you add in context. "Turning the other cheek" is some complex Roman social thing where if you hit someone a certain way it says you view them as an equal, so you're basically forcing them to look you in the eye.
The shirt/coat thing is shaming people for abusing the legal system. Something about how you can't legally sue for certain posessions and turning over your coat makes them look like a bastard.
And the go to miles thing is because legionaires could force you to carry their kit for one mile. Going two would shame them and make them look bad.
It's all ways for people with little social standing and power to punch up.