i understand fully what you are saying. you are getting caught up on the damagee having to forgive the person who damaged him. thats all well and good but it doesnt negate this first part of the quote where he says that the person who damaged should repay. it doesnt matter whether that is intended only for christians or whoever. it doesnt matter that the person damaged should forgive them whether they actually do pay or not. the bottom line is that in the ideal situation, jesus would agree that the person who did the damage should repay the person he damaged.

he never says a person, he says you as a christian should repay, not a person, YOU (a christian).


yes you should as a christians, not every one is christians, and thus when some one who isnt a christian strikes you in the eye, they arnt christians, so you cant expect them to reepay you, they dont follow your law, so you have to forgive.


if you are to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid,but if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them as does not the gentile force recompense from those who have done them wrong, does not the tax collector force recompense from those who have done them wrong, does not the praises force recompense from those who have done them wrong, for if you force recompense what more have you done? forgive them and be perfect like our father who art in heaven.


so you should never expect to paid recompense, just happy that you are.



Quote (Ylem122 @ Oct 14 2013 01:09pm)
thats a citation that says as a christian you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you: repay them as you would wish to be repaid

and as a christian "if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them"

Not: the person who damaged SHOULD pay

so, citation please?



Untill you actually try to understand this, all im going to be able to do is post the same thing over and over and over.



This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 15 2013 10:37pm

as i said, i understand fully what you are saying any why. you are not understanding what i am saying.

ill try this one more time.

there are two relevant statements here. lets label them for reference.
Statement A - if you are to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid
Statement B - if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them.

lets take them one at a time. what does statement B mean? i think we both agree that the person who was damaged should not expect payment.

what about statement A, what does that mean? it seems pretty clear that its saying the person who damaged should pay. the phrase "as you would wish to be paid" does not change that. nor does the fact that statement B says they shouldnt expect payment mean that the person who damaged them shouldnt pay. they are two separate and distinct statements.

look at them this way. lets simplify each statement and see how that looks. it would amount to "the person who damaged should pay the person he damaged but they shouldnt expect it." simplified like this, does it still seem like the second half negates the first? no, not at all. the fact that you shouldnt expect payment has nothing at all to do with whether the person who did the damage has a moral obligation to repay them or not. should you take them to court to force them to fulfill that moral obligation? no, not according to jesus. but that doesnt mean the moral obligation isnt there.

and again, it doesnt matter if this is talking about only christians, of course it is. non-christians clearly arent going to follow the bible.

so statment A clearly shows that jesus held the person who did the damage should repay, and there is no contradiction here with eye for an eye.


one more way to look at it. according to you, what should the person person who was damaged do if the person who damaged them DOES come to repay them? should they say "oh, no thank you, i forgive you, you dont have to pay me."? i dont think thats the case. if it were, and you were correct about them not having to pay, statement A wouldnt be there. jesus would have just said statement B that you should forgive them. according to the way you are interpreting it, theres no need for statement A to be there at all. it doesnt add anything.

This post was edited by ReturnFormer on Oct 16 2013 02:04am

see thats your problem. what you think is pretty clear is actually incorrect.

Statement A - if you are to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid
Statement B - if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them.

If YOUare to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid

not a person, not the person who did damage, but YOU.

please just take a second use your imagination, and try to understand, you =/= a person.


one more way to look at it. according to you, what should the person person who was damaged do if the person who damaged them DOES come to repay them? should they say "oh, no thank you, i forgive you, you dont have to pay me."? i dont think thats the case. if it were, and you were correct about them not having to pay, statement A wouldnt be there. jesus would have just said statement B that you should forgive them. according to the way you are interpreting it, theres no need for statement A to be there at all. it doesnt add anything.

yes, that is the case. you say i have forgiven you, i do not need it, as a christian, that is your sacrafice by accepting the way of god.

though not every one is a christian, and there are those that would wish to be repaid, thus you must repay them, again that is your sacrafice by accepting the way of god.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 02:27am

What? The way you are reading it is talking about someone who damages themself. If the you in the first statement is the same as the you in the second statement then that's what it means. Which is clearly wrong.

Saying "if you do xyz" is equivalent to saying "if a person does xyz".

You are reading this totally wrong.

not at all.

there isnt even a You in the second statment.

Statement A - if you are to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid
Statement B - if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them.

you are not a person, you are a christian who has accepted the sacrafices of the way of christ.

sacrafices like you dont get repaid, and sacrafices like even though you dont get repaid you still have to repay others.


you are a christian who has accepted that they will love god and themselfs, you have accepted that you will do onto others as you would have them do onto you reguardless of what they have done onto you, and you have accepted that you will forgive your enemy.

you =/= a person you = a christian.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 02:35am

Statement a "if you damage" that is definitely referring to the one who did the damage, whoever it is. I'm sorry but if you think otherwise you do not understand English.


Statement b "is to strike your eye. Your is a different tense of you. So yes, there is a you in the second statement, and this time it is clearly referring to the one who was damaged.

your is a term to show posession, not tense.

do you know what the word but means?


Statement A - if you are to accidnetly strike some one in the eye with a block of wood, repay them as you would wish to be repaid

BUT

Statement B - if some one is to strike your eye with a block of wood, forgive them.

Mathew 5:38-48

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 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. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 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. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 02:38am

This may be what you were taught but it is not what this quote means.

it is exactly what it means, its my quote, where do you get off tellign me what it means?

go find it in the bible.

you wont, its not there, i said it several posts back.

what you will find is this:

Mathew 5:38-48

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 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. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You haveheardthat it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 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. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.




Heard? = past tense

was? = past tense

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Oct 16 2013 02:40am