I wonder

Help Support CattleToday:

Augustine finally unveiled the fuller meaning of Christ's command to turn the cheek. The command certainly includes prohibiting revenge: you should not imitate the behavior of your assailant. However, the command includes more: not only should you forgive your assailant, but also, out of joy, out of Love, out of Holy Spirit, and without fear of any kind or for any reason, seek to make your assailant good. Seek to draw him into repentance and into receiving the ultimate Good, the Holy Spirit.

According to Saint Augustine, Jesus' command to turn the cheek points to the uniquely Christian motive: charity. Charity is the most important of the theological virtues. "So faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13).


Again. It's a theological given.
 
Which in this instance very much includes a 'non-conformist' minister & a man who failed to abide by his own teachings. When criticized by the Vatican, he responded with a lengthy and very public tirade that announced the pope to be the Antichrist.

There was no Vatican or Pope when Christ walked the earth, which is the historical figure previously referenced.
 
No, but there was when the person that wrote what you posted walked the earth. (Matthew Henry) I used the word 'included' for a reason. Most of what you typed is word for word from his Bible Commentary
 
The usual rabbit holes. But you knew Henry was not the historical figure being previously discussed. I posted that to illustrate the accepted theological explanation of the verse held by most theologians on the topic. I also posted a similiar understanding held by Augustine. Accept it or do not.
The point of the verse is humility, charity, patience. Not retaliation for an insult. :tiphat:
 
greybeard said:
bball said:
The usual rabbit holes.
Why does that bother you?

I didnt say that it did. It just appears to be your typical mode of operation. I have come to expect it from you on certain topics. Redirect the discussion from the main point to random, superfluous, points that are minor or non relevant to the main topic of discussion.
It was an observation, not an irritation.
 
It was an observation, not an irritation.

Here's some more 'observation':
Thread began discussing Ranchers.
1. Within 4 posts, it was diverted to the subject of Moderators.
2.Changed to Gay Pride Parades.
3.Changed to name calling.
4.Changed to who is flagging posts.
5.Changed back to moderator.
6.Changed to the definiton of a peon.
7.Changed back to name calling.
8.Changed back to Ranchers.
9.Changed to Northern Rancher.
10.Changed to discussing trees and landscaping.
11.Changed back to Ranchers.
12.Changed to Gcreekrch and posting pictures.
13.You then changed it to 'turning the other cheek' and following scripture.
14. Changed to discussing Milkmaid.
15. Changed back to discussing scripture.
16. Changed back to Milkmaid.
17 Changed back to scripture.
18. Changed to rabbit holes.

And that's where we are now.

Perhaps, when you joined the discussion, you should have made a declaration 'defining' what the discussion should be about and insist it remain there.
(In my 9 years on CT, and countless threads I've read here, I've only seen 2 members ever try to define and steer a discussion where "they" thought it should to go. You are one of them..I'm pretty sure you can easily guess who the other member is)
 
Greybeard,
Fortunately for me, your observation skills are as keen as your ability to remain on topic. When i joined the discussion, I commented on a statement made by alisonb. The discussion was already steered. I added to it. SOB made a post that was interesting and thought provoking. I responded to him. That's what happens on a forum. Continue to run your rabbit holes when you aren't able to truly contribute, refute or agree on a particular topic. Your game is stale amigo.
I make a genuine attempt to be objective, fair and accurate. I have no issues with anyone on this site, present company included. Perhaps you could give that a try? Or not. Life is much more enjoyable with a pleasant disposition and mindset. Good luck whichever way you go.
 
When i joined the discussion, I commented on a statement made by alisonb. The discussion was already steered.
Exactly. More than once, by quite a few different people.
It's the internet..it's a discussion board open to all who wish to join in.
It isn't your place alone (or mine) , to decide who discusses what, or when anything in particular is discussed. Once an opening post of any thread or any individual post is submitted, it belongs to the CT community at large, to go wherever it goes...within the confines of board rules and TOS.
Your displeasure however trite, is noted, given all the consideration warranted and I now turn the other cheek.
May I have another sire?
 
sstterry said:
How about we talk about catfish now? :lol:

If you want to talk fishing, well, I guess that'll be ok.~Lynyrd Skynyrd



Unless you meant the other catfishing(luring someone online with a fake persona)...i guess it's a real thing? :roll:
 
For those that want to trust the secular...

While modern conceptions of forgiveness focus mainly on its emotional dimensions, in Jesus' first-century context, forgiveness had more concrete implications. The Greek word translated as "forgive" in the New Testament, aphiēmi, carried a wide range of meanings, including to remit (a debt), to leave (something or someone) alone, to allow (an action), to leave, to send away, to desert or abandon, and even to divorce.

In fact, the Greek word appears 146 times in the New Testament, but it is translated in most English versions as "forgive" only 38 of those times. Considering the entire range of meanings of this word gives us some indication of what "forgiveness" might have meant to listeners in Jesus' first-century context. Most of all, forgiveness was an action rather than a feeling, and so our contemporary ideas about forgiveness as an emotional state must come from sources other than the biblical text.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/five-myths-about-forgiveness-in-the-bible_b_924286?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABzwyd87vp4Su1azXQFA1_Ur0yD0aKn6diuYVDmE191IWsB6xB8xnZjvRB7mrDXPb5qFkCxEiJ7T14rIsNQX_La7d3TQ5S6Y5gDTHQT7zJ6qUT9qghqoSdjthCB1FxnImPPpRosYmuIMlTeuG6-AZXpCTcjjoqLqiox5hHaZHZ-V

Or the Bible

Matthew Chapter 18

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

I think the Bible means to forgive your brother in Christ
 
bball said:
sstterry said:
How about we talk about catfish now? :lol:

If you want to talk fishing, well, I guess that'll be ok.~Lynyrd Skynyrd



Unless you meant the other catfishing(luring someone online with a fake persona)...i guess it's a real thing? :roll:

Actually I had just read the catfish thread on here. It was my poor attempt to lighten the mood. :(
 
Dave said:
I shouldn't have titled this thread, "I Wonder" but rather We Wander........ but what the heck. Carry on.

Your post made me recall Tolkien:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
 

Latest posts

Top