RespectTradition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,831
- Likes
- 7
do u press charges or not
easy, by the way you respond......jump from slander equaling pacifism.....similar by making the giant leap that baptism not christ saves someone
Posted via VolNation Mobile
I think that this passage gives authority for the government to respond to and punish murderers, so yes, I would be justified in reporting and asking them to do something about the murders. I will say though, that I am not sure how far this goes, by which I am referring to capital punishment. The passage in Romans 13 has some problematic ideas to it. I have trouble understanding it all and fitting it all in. I don't claim to know it all. I do understand some of it though and what may be allowable for the government is not allowable for me. I truly struggle with this passage more than just about any other in the whole bible on any topic. I do know that this passage only grants government authority to 'brings wrath on the one who practices evil'. I can't see how that would apply to another country, especially since the govt of that other country is also a minister of God.Romans 13
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Not exactly a big leap. Baptism does save us, through Jesus. Go to What Does Your Church Teach? and read the article Do I have to be baptized if you want a more comprehensive treatment of that subject. Also see the article Saved by...1 Peter 3
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Not sure where you get the slander thing.
Matthew 5
38 You have heard that it was said, AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
While I am sure that there could be an idiom about slander that uses these same words, I think from the context that is not the intent. When it follows condemning 'an eye for an eye' and 'do not resist', it leads to a conclusion about violence, not slander.
Consider it without the idiom.
it was said an eye for an eye but I say do not resist an evil person but accept slander
Total non sequiter.
However, that is hardly the only passage I base my pacifism on. I have given several that can't be dismissed as referencing slander.
FTR, I am not a pacifist by temperament. I don't want to be one. I agree totally with the sentiments you express. I am not a pacifist by choice, but because of conscience.
BTW, this is a fun conversation.
Last edited: