Thought for the day -

[kyburg]

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.

- James 3:17-18

It follows that you don't get righteousness by bombing for it, do you? Discuss.

Comments

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium ("Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.") -- Jesus, Matthew 10:34

[pagawne.livejournal.com]

What is there to discuss? You really do not find love, kindness, sharing, truthfulness, really any of the virtues by bombing. All bombing gets is rubble, holes in the ground, dead people, injured people , injured animals, dead animals, destruction, and hate and fear.

This, at least to me, seems counter productive. I personally think the Peace Corps did a LOT more good.

when...

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

When I had my 'near-death' experience, I have to say that the feeling was as stated..."wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy" No, Jesus was the Prince of Peace, not the God of War.

[yasha-chan.livejournal.com]

John 13:34

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

[lord-keeper.livejournal.com]

But my one problem is righteousness in and of itself. For those that think they do indeed have/are righteousness think themselves better than those that they think do not have it.

Who says who has it?

Also do keep in mind that what you are quoting is the "holy bible" and not everyone follows that. Those that are doing the bombing follow a completely different book and you are the infidel and they are the righteous.

Speaking as an aeithiest no one has "righteousness" for who ever thinks that they are indeed righteous....is usually wrong. For, I do believe. that to be truly righteous you must be "of the right". Now following that logic, what makes you "right" and me wrong?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

"As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you." Same book and chapter, verses 12 and 13.

Further in the same book? Between this and that?

It's the truth of the kingdom that is spoken of, and how best to get it out in a world where "(men) will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues." - not actual calls to arms. It is the act of accepting Jesus and his message that He is certain will turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

The message - and putting Jesus first (no other love before Him, not of parent or child) has more importance than anything else (10:37-42), but this book also simply states that once received, the reward granted is equal - but if not, the repercussions are also dire.

The consequences of denial are clearly spelled out - but nowhere in this chapter is there a call to force compliance under arms.

--

Folks get paid to be Biblical scholars. I don't - nor do I claim to be one. However, I can look things up and come to my own conclusions - and I have a Jesuit scholar or two to check my work.

Yes, there are passages with bite in them - however, taken in a greater context of more passages...and in the context of the history where the words were written...it is the content, not the context that has an edge.

In a world without love - bringing it, without force of arms? In that day in age?

You got it. Shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. You can't force people in changing their minds - just present your argument, and make sure you win it.

There's a lot at stake to make changes - and this chapter is a good example of the divine knowing of it.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Maybe you can help me answer a question.

Why are so many of my pagan friends "atheists?" (Or at least, that's what they say, I rarely believe it.) If they're pagan and atheist - what's going on?

Also, I think in this context? Righteousness != egomaniac. Certainly, your only experience with people who considered themselves righteous might have been highly colored with assholishness, but the actual definition is something separate.

One of my favorite examples is the accolade the Jews have for Oskar Schindler - you can read more here. Go take a look.

[dudemungus.livejournal.com]

I have met a few "pagan atheists" I think they interpret atheism as a lack of belief in Christian religion, and I suspect want to come up with as many ways as possible to upset mom and dad--ergo; many of the atheist/pagans I have met are also bisexual.

Righteousness, I think at least, is something that you are seen as, not something you see yourself as. Sort of like, the word humble--if you see yourself as Humble, then you think your are great and sell yourself short, which in actuality means you probably come across as pretty arrogant.

I think sadly, pulling exerps from the bible preaching peace is a waste of time for people who want war. "judge not lest ye be judged", "vengeance is MINE sayeth the lord" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", 'thou shalt not kill" are pretty good standbys, but finding a Christian conservative willing to step back and mind his own business and leave vengeance and judgement and killing to the lord is pretty near impossible.

I mean, "thou shalt not kill". That's pretty clear there isn't it? I have not read other religion's literature, but I am sure Jehovah was pretty clear on that one.

They claim absolute faith, but don't trust god to do his job.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Which is to say, they don't know what the word means. *facesmacks*