Forgive your enemies, but defend your Folk
(media.scored.co)
Wow, this is really cool!
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
47 comments:
This is maybe too cerebral for me. I'm a simple man. All I know is that Jesus told me to buy a sword (Luke 22:36).
I doubt He meant it for peeling potatoes or chopping wood.
I doubt He meant it for peeling potatoes or chopping wood.
Didn't He also tell you that those who live by the sword die by it?
You can own a sword without living by it. You need the sword in case you meet someone that lives by it.
Not even the same thing. Clearly, there were Christian Orders of Knights who are the very reason Europe survived (e.g. The Battle of Lepanto, the Reconquest of Granada, etc.). Christians are NOT called to be doormats to barbarians and subversives.
Dude, you're in the wrong forum if you think you can come in here and trip up anyone with that low-level sophistry.
Dude, you're in the wrong forum if you think you can come in here and trip up anyone with that low-level sophistry.
'No, it means to turn the other cheek, and then keep giving them cheeks to slap until you're dead. Use your last breath to tell them you forgive them.' ' Some preacher in 2025.
I've seen a lot of interpretations of what Jesus meant with "turn the other cheek" and the most convincing is that it is a challenge to someone to treat you like a peer, not a subordinate, and face you head-on versus trying to dismiss you as a know-nothing.
"Meek" is also widely misunderstood in English. It does NOT mean "weak".
"Humble" is another word we don't understand. It does NOT mean "submissive".
Modern Christians are so far removed from what is taught in scripture it's ridiculous. They're worshiping a god who never existed and who teaches outright falsehoods.
"Meek" is also widely misunderstood in English. It does NOT mean "weak".
"Humble" is another word we don't understand. It does NOT mean "submissive".
Modern Christians are so far removed from what is taught in scripture it's ridiculous. They're worshiping a god who never existed and who teaches outright falsehoods.
Or just defend your folk and stop being a faggot
The only way to destroy evil is to become evil. If you "win" this way, nothing changes except you are now the enemy of Good.
No, it's not evil. People have very distorted views of good and evil. Evil is the practice of needlessly inflicting pain and suffering - but also things like alleged friends sabotaging your relationship with a woman, committing crimes against you, gossip with malevolent intent, make you drink alcohol even though you were on withdrawal, colleagues making your life harder, etc.
Killing animals for food isn't evil. It is a basic necessity to eat meat for us. Killing enemies isn't evil. In wars it is common, and in civil environments the only problem is that killing enemies in peaceful areas raises conflict to your own kin as well. Demoralizing your enemies isn't evil. It is part of winning the conflict. Doing nothing gives free reign to your enemies, and if ALL of your people can do nothing more than "see?! I told you so!!" then nothing will get done and your enemy can continue with impunity.
If you are not willing to do that, your folk is the one who gets destroyed by its enemies. Is it good that your people, your family, your children suffer for your "pacifism"? This idea that you need to become evil in order to best evil is false. You're NEVER going to win peacefully, what people consider "good."
True "good" means you are willing to sacrifice yourself and your well-being for the sake of your people. And this may mean sacrificing your consciousness of what is evil to do what is best for your people. Become evil so that future generations don't have to be. This is what it means to become a soldier, to walk home with PTSD, having a kill count, possibly getting crippled or killed. You take that burden, so that others do not have to.
Killing animals for food isn't evil. It is a basic necessity to eat meat for us. Killing enemies isn't evil. In wars it is common, and in civil environments the only problem is that killing enemies in peaceful areas raises conflict to your own kin as well. Demoralizing your enemies isn't evil. It is part of winning the conflict. Doing nothing gives free reign to your enemies, and if ALL of your people can do nothing more than "see?! I told you so!!" then nothing will get done and your enemy can continue with impunity.
If you are not willing to do that, your folk is the one who gets destroyed by its enemies. Is it good that your people, your family, your children suffer for your "pacifism"? This idea that you need to become evil in order to best evil is false. You're NEVER going to win peacefully, what people consider "good."
True "good" means you are willing to sacrifice yourself and your well-being for the sake of your people. And this may mean sacrificing your consciousness of what is evil to do what is best for your people. Become evil so that future generations don't have to be. This is what it means to become a soldier, to walk home with PTSD, having a kill count, possibly getting crippled or killed. You take that burden, so that others do not have to.
> Become evil so that future generations don't have to be.
Himmler talked about this, it's also a reason why I chose my username.
Himmler talked about this, it's also a reason why I chose my username.
You have a very perverted perspective on "good" and "evil" and morality in general.
> evil is needlessly inflicting pain and suffering
No, evil is pain and suffering. Death is evil. Sickness is evil. Going hungry is evil. Being poor is evil. Being weak is evil. Being alone is evil.
"Evil" and "bad" are really the same things. Something that is bad for you is evil.
> Killing animals for food isn't evil. It is a basic necessity to eat meat for us.
Killing and eating animals is good, because eating is good and starving is evil.
> Killing enemies isn't evil.
Killing people trying to kill you is good, because being killed is evil.
> True "good" means you are willing to sacrifice yourself and your well-being for the sake of your people.
No.
"Sacrifice" is when you give up one thing for something better. It is not good to give up good things. So part of the equation of the sacrifice involves evil.
So if the net of the sacrifice isn't good, don't do it -- it is evil.
> become evil so future generations don't have to be
This is nonsense.
You guys really need to understand Nietzsche. "God is dead" he said "because YOU KILLED HIM."
Stop killing God.
> evil is needlessly inflicting pain and suffering
No, evil is pain and suffering. Death is evil. Sickness is evil. Going hungry is evil. Being poor is evil. Being weak is evil. Being alone is evil.
"Evil" and "bad" are really the same things. Something that is bad for you is evil.
> Killing animals for food isn't evil. It is a basic necessity to eat meat for us.
Killing and eating animals is good, because eating is good and starving is evil.
> Killing enemies isn't evil.
Killing people trying to kill you is good, because being killed is evil.
> True "good" means you are willing to sacrifice yourself and your well-being for the sake of your people.
No.
"Sacrifice" is when you give up one thing for something better. It is not good to give up good things. So part of the equation of the sacrifice involves evil.
So if the net of the sacrifice isn't good, don't do it -- it is evil.
> become evil so future generations don't have to be
This is nonsense.
You guys really need to understand Nietzsche. "God is dead" he said "because YOU KILLED HIM."
Stop killing God.
> No, evil is pain and suffering.
Then you must be vegetarian and never harm your enemies. Unless they justify self-defence actions, they can do whatever they want against you. Like impoverish you, censor you, kick you out of your home, let you starve, have you go into gulags, etc.
> Death is evil. Sickness is evil. Going hungry is evil. Being poor is evil. Being weak is evil. Being alone is evil.
So nature and reality is evil? If such things can be evil, your idea of "evil" totally goes astray. Good and evil is used for humans to determine their moral alignments, not for random situations, animals and objects.
And in my view good and evil is way more complex than people would like it to be. For example handing food to niggers isn't "good", nor keeping a retard alive forever, who needs permanent intensive care to have a life as a vegetable.
> Something that is bad for you is evil.
That is a fringe interpretation of it. What if a serial rapist is hungry? What if a jew perpetrating a multi-billion fraud scheme has a cough?
> "Sacrifice" is when you give up one thing for something better. It is not good to give up good things.
That just goes further into detail of the reasoning of sacrifice. Obviously you won't sacrifice your child for a Lego piece.
> You guys really need to understand Nietzsche. "God is dead" he said "because YOU KILLED HIM."
That's completely unrelated. Refer to what I said. I said "become evil so future generations don't have to be" in the context that it's a misconception of what "evil" even is. If you would gleefully slaughter your enemies and return a hero, that's even better - but that's not how people think.
I eradicated a nest of 500+ aggressive wasps, and it took quite some effort and waiting for the right opportunity. None of them survived. I returned as an unsung hero that day - I am still proud of it. Should I have contemplated about the "evil" act I committed? One of them stung me, and that day their fate was sealed.
It's that simple. When TND and TKD are on the table, I will think the same. If you think that's evil, that's idiotic, but have consolation in the thought that future generations won't have to do what we have to do.
And this "The only way to destroy evil is to become evil" idea is nonsense. Just don't teach children the Talmud, lol.
Then you must be vegetarian and never harm your enemies. Unless they justify self-defence actions, they can do whatever they want against you. Like impoverish you, censor you, kick you out of your home, let you starve, have you go into gulags, etc.
> Death is evil. Sickness is evil. Going hungry is evil. Being poor is evil. Being weak is evil. Being alone is evil.
So nature and reality is evil? If such things can be evil, your idea of "evil" totally goes astray. Good and evil is used for humans to determine their moral alignments, not for random situations, animals and objects.
And in my view good and evil is way more complex than people would like it to be. For example handing food to niggers isn't "good", nor keeping a retard alive forever, who needs permanent intensive care to have a life as a vegetable.
> Something that is bad for you is evil.
That is a fringe interpretation of it. What if a serial rapist is hungry? What if a jew perpetrating a multi-billion fraud scheme has a cough?
> "Sacrifice" is when you give up one thing for something better. It is not good to give up good things.
That just goes further into detail of the reasoning of sacrifice. Obviously you won't sacrifice your child for a Lego piece.
> You guys really need to understand Nietzsche. "God is dead" he said "because YOU KILLED HIM."
That's completely unrelated. Refer to what I said. I said "become evil so future generations don't have to be" in the context that it's a misconception of what "evil" even is. If you would gleefully slaughter your enemies and return a hero, that's even better - but that's not how people think.
I eradicated a nest of 500+ aggressive wasps, and it took quite some effort and waiting for the right opportunity. None of them survived. I returned as an unsung hero that day - I am still proud of it. Should I have contemplated about the "evil" act I committed? One of them stung me, and that day their fate was sealed.
It's that simple. When TND and TKD are on the table, I will think the same. If you think that's evil, that's idiotic, but have consolation in the thought that future generations won't have to do what we have to do.
And this "The only way to destroy evil is to become evil" idea is nonsense. Just don't teach children the Talmud, lol.
My whole point was that "become evil so our kids don't have to" equates doing "bad" things to bad people as evil, which it is not.
It seems like you agree.
It is not bad to kill people who intend to kill you. Period. In fact, it is bad to NOT kill people who intend to kill you.
As far as morality, it's very, very simple. What is good to one person is not necessarily good to another. In other words, things do not inherently have a "good" or "evil" trait embedded in them. What makes something good or bad is how someone interprets it. Without someone to say "I don't like this" or "this is nice" there is no good or evil at all.
The problem people get into is they think that just because morality is subjective (specifically meaning it depends on the person who is affected by it) that morality is relative (meaning it depends on the perspective of the person looking at it.) Or that people can somehow redefine what is good for them because they prefer death or starvation or things like that, which is nonsense.
Living is good. Death is bad. Food is good. Poison is bad. Etc...
And from there you have to ask what is more important: MY being alive, or YOUR being alive? Obviously, for YOU, YOU being alive is most important, and for ME, me being alive is most important. And then you start to see how one thing can be good for one person but bad for another. Then you see that having power over other people is inherently good, because you get the things you want.
It seems like you agree.
It is not bad to kill people who intend to kill you. Period. In fact, it is bad to NOT kill people who intend to kill you.
As far as morality, it's very, very simple. What is good to one person is not necessarily good to another. In other words, things do not inherently have a "good" or "evil" trait embedded in them. What makes something good or bad is how someone interprets it. Without someone to say "I don't like this" or "this is nice" there is no good or evil at all.
The problem people get into is they think that just because morality is subjective (specifically meaning it depends on the person who is affected by it) that morality is relative (meaning it depends on the perspective of the person looking at it.) Or that people can somehow redefine what is good for them because they prefer death or starvation or things like that, which is nonsense.
Living is good. Death is bad. Food is good. Poison is bad. Etc...
And from there you have to ask what is more important: MY being alive, or YOUR being alive? Obviously, for YOU, YOU being alive is most important, and for ME, me being alive is most important. And then you start to see how one thing can be good for one person but bad for another. Then you see that having power over other people is inherently good, because you get the things you want.
This is patently false.
It is not "evil" to fight to protect your family, your nation, your religion, etc...
We need to get rid of this idea totally. Killing is not necessarily evil. In fact, sometimes NOT killing IS evil.
It is not "evil" to fight to protect your family, your nation, your religion, etc...
We need to get rid of this idea totally. Killing is not necessarily evil. In fact, sometimes NOT killing IS evil.
Well said. Really encompasses the idea that we are, necessarily, part of something bigger than ourselves.
> ... we are, necessarily, part of something bigger than ourselves.
That has been the utmost and absolute antithesis of these "modern" times. People have been atomized and deracinated from their heritage, culture and identity by those wandering desert gypsies in order to break and tear the fabric of our nations. "Apes together, strong together."
That has been the utmost and absolute antithesis of these "modern" times. People have been atomized and deracinated from their heritage, culture and identity by those wandering desert gypsies in order to break and tear the fabric of our nations. "Apes together, strong together."
It's a tricky concept because we *are* unique individuals created by God, but the misconception, I think, is that this makes us *superior* to a group of individuals. That's obviously ridiculous.
What being an individual means is that we have different abilities and we need to accept that God has unique plans for us based on that. Those plans will almost certainly involve cooperating with others following their own plans.
It also means that it is *not* okay for the group to sacrifice people for "the greater good" (like Aztecs). Self-sacrifice is a supreme moral act that the individual has to perform of their own volition.
What being an individual means is that we have different abilities and we need to accept that God has unique plans for us based on that. Those plans will almost certainly involve cooperating with others following their own plans.
It also means that it is *not* okay for the group to sacrifice people for "the greater good" (like Aztecs). Self-sacrifice is a supreme moral act that the individual has to perform of their own volition.
St. Cyril missed the point of Jesus' sermon.
First, the Law of Moses was given to Israel and sets in place rules for how they were supposed to deal with themselves. Very little of the law has to do with the people outside of Israel, and most of that is "Don't pick up their culture, religion or habits."
God was obsessed with how Israelites treated other Israelites. Don't rape each other. Don't murder each other. Don't steal from each other. If you hurt each other, make amends and restitution.
Heck, in the Law of Moses, there was a procedure where you could tell a murderer "We are not going to hunt you down anymore." It went something like this. The family of the murderer would come to the victim's family and beg for forgiveness. Then the leader of the victim's family would swear an oath that he would not get vengeance for murder. Once that testimony has been sworn, it was unlawful for the brothers of the victim to kill the murderer.
When Jesus amended the Law of Moses on the Sermon on the Mount, he wasn't telling jews of Israel how to treat Romans and Greeks. He was talking about INTERNAL FEUDS. Thus, the ENEMY he was referring to was OTHER ISRAELITES. It had NOTHING to do with Romans or Greeks.
Forgiving your ENEMY meant saying, or swearing, "I am not going to pursue justice" against people living in your community. It was a big deal because you could end feuds and violence all with a few words. You could restore entire towns back to sanity. "Love your enemies" meant showing kindness and compassion to people IN YOUR COMMUNITY who had wronged you. If someone stole your cow, and you found he was starving, you were supposed to allow him to glean from your harvest. You can settle the issue with the cow later. But in the meantime, just because you have a beef with someone does not mean you should stop showing charity and kindness to them.
"Love", by the way, is an ACTION VERB, not a sentiment or feeling. "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR" meant actually helping your neighbor. It meant showing up with food and clothing when they had a disaster, or helping them tend their fields if they are injured, or standing up for them when their character is assaulted by others.
As far as OUTSIDERS go, Jesus gave a few directions for dealing with them. "If you are compelled to walk 1 mile" -- because at the time, Roman law stated that soldiers could compel locals to carry their pack for 1 mile and no more -- "Walk with him 2". In other words, Rome has conquered you, and you HAVE to submit to them, and you might as well pay 2x what you owe them in tribute.
Since its original founding, Christianity had been forming communities. These communities were isolated from the local populations NOT because the Christians isolated themselves, but because THEY isolated them from the community. Jesus never intended for things to go that way. He wanted Christians to be a part of the community they live in.
As time went on, the isolation turned into separation, and soon, you had entire cities made up of Christians alone, with neighboring cities of pagans or whatever. And what would eventually happen was the pagans or whatever would wage war on the Christians. And how were the Christians to respond? Obviously, they were to wage war right back at them, until they relented and agreed to peace. During such a war, were they supposed to "Love their enemy"? Of course not. It's a ridiculous concept. When you're laying siege to a city, do you give them food and water?
Today we live in a world where we have nations. The civilized world is mostly Christian. We owe OURSELVES everything, but we owe foreign nations NOTHING. In fact, we had better treat them as enemies as much as they do to us. Should we feed a starving nation when they are trying to wage war against us? Ridiculous.
First, the Law of Moses was given to Israel and sets in place rules for how they were supposed to deal with themselves. Very little of the law has to do with the people outside of Israel, and most of that is "Don't pick up their culture, religion or habits."
God was obsessed with how Israelites treated other Israelites. Don't rape each other. Don't murder each other. Don't steal from each other. If you hurt each other, make amends and restitution.
Heck, in the Law of Moses, there was a procedure where you could tell a murderer "We are not going to hunt you down anymore." It went something like this. The family of the murderer would come to the victim's family and beg for forgiveness. Then the leader of the victim's family would swear an oath that he would not get vengeance for murder. Once that testimony has been sworn, it was unlawful for the brothers of the victim to kill the murderer.
When Jesus amended the Law of Moses on the Sermon on the Mount, he wasn't telling jews of Israel how to treat Romans and Greeks. He was talking about INTERNAL FEUDS. Thus, the ENEMY he was referring to was OTHER ISRAELITES. It had NOTHING to do with Romans or Greeks.
Forgiving your ENEMY meant saying, or swearing, "I am not going to pursue justice" against people living in your community. It was a big deal because you could end feuds and violence all with a few words. You could restore entire towns back to sanity. "Love your enemies" meant showing kindness and compassion to people IN YOUR COMMUNITY who had wronged you. If someone stole your cow, and you found he was starving, you were supposed to allow him to glean from your harvest. You can settle the issue with the cow later. But in the meantime, just because you have a beef with someone does not mean you should stop showing charity and kindness to them.
"Love", by the way, is an ACTION VERB, not a sentiment or feeling. "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR" meant actually helping your neighbor. It meant showing up with food and clothing when they had a disaster, or helping them tend their fields if they are injured, or standing up for them when their character is assaulted by others.
As far as OUTSIDERS go, Jesus gave a few directions for dealing with them. "If you are compelled to walk 1 mile" -- because at the time, Roman law stated that soldiers could compel locals to carry their pack for 1 mile and no more -- "Walk with him 2". In other words, Rome has conquered you, and you HAVE to submit to them, and you might as well pay 2x what you owe them in tribute.
Since its original founding, Christianity had been forming communities. These communities were isolated from the local populations NOT because the Christians isolated themselves, but because THEY isolated them from the community. Jesus never intended for things to go that way. He wanted Christians to be a part of the community they live in.
As time went on, the isolation turned into separation, and soon, you had entire cities made up of Christians alone, with neighboring cities of pagans or whatever. And what would eventually happen was the pagans or whatever would wage war on the Christians. And how were the Christians to respond? Obviously, they were to wage war right back at them, until they relented and agreed to peace. During such a war, were they supposed to "Love their enemy"? Of course not. It's a ridiculous concept. When you're laying siege to a city, do you give them food and water?
Today we live in a world where we have nations. The civilized world is mostly Christian. We owe OURSELVES everything, but we owe foreign nations NOTHING. In fact, we had better treat them as enemies as much as they do to us. Should we feed a starving nation when they are trying to wage war against us? Ridiculous.
I forgive my enemies by impailing them and running a sword threw their bowls.
When Christ and the Apostles said "enemies" and "neighbors," they never meant non-Whites. The only non-Whites they had to deal with were jews, and they make it very clear jews are to only be expelled or exterminated with maximum hate.
Was Jesus' message only for the Israelites at that time, or for all of mankind at all times? What were the demographics makeup of that region at that time? "Whites" and "Jews"?
"Mankind" is only Whites. God didn't make non-Whites. He made Adam, who was White. Whites never have non-White babies. Have you ever seen Whites make nigger babies? And the demographics of that region were just Whites, jews, and a very small minority of other non-Whites like canaanites you can see how Jesus treated. As I showed you with the sources, jews started existing around 1200 BC when esau race mixed with canaanites, creating the edomites: the jews. The khazarians/ashekanzi joined the edomites around 700 AD; neither of them are Israelites/Hebrews. In 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, God commanded White King David to mass genocide the jews and palestenians to create Israel (Goliath was a palestinian), only he disobeyed by sparing the women and children out of natural White man's compassion, which God duly punished him heavily for by taking some of his children and is why we're cursed with jews today who use matriarchy instead of patriarchy. They were slowly integrated into Israel's society over the next few hundred years. From there, they used usury to grow in power and status to become *most of* (but not all) the Pharisees and Sadducees by Jesus's time, whom you can see how many times He had to confront them like flipping their money lending tables over and whipping them out of the temple. If you think non-Whites can be Christian and were included, then you have absolutely no ability to reconcile wanting monoethnic White nations and being against race mixing. It's one or the other. You can't say you love to go swimming but hate to get wet; you can't say you love jews but hate communism.
Interesting take.
1. Was Abraham white?
2. Surely no human survived the flood, and Noah & co restarted it all? How did we end up with nigs, poos, and chinese (just to name a few)?
1. Was Abraham white?
2. Surely no human survived the flood, and Noah & co restarted it all? How did we end up with nigs, poos, and chinese (just to name a few)?
>Was Abraham white?
Obviously. The whole concept of "Abrahamic religion" is modern jewish nonsense. Jews don't come from Abraham, they come from Esau race mixing with non-White Canaanites. Jesus specifically says this in John 8:39-47, and they admit it themselves as I proved to you using their own sources. They only started calling themselves Israelites and Hebrews in 1860, then created the scofield "'bible" which lead to all the modern boomerism today like "jews are God's chosen people" and "God blesses those who bless israel," and eventually getting their modern synagogue of satan state of israel. Arabs come from Ishmael doing the same, and jews wrote the quran. Without jews, islam wouldn't exist. They're just the broom of jews to slaughter Whites. It's not everyone vs. the jew, it's Whites vs. everyone especially the jew.
>Surely no human survived the flood, and Noah & co restarted it all? How did we end up with nigs, poos, and chinese (just to name a few)?
The flood was local, not worldwide, and it didn't get rid of all the non-Whites. Enoch goes in depth on this. Giants survived and survive even to this day as well. Also, the very word "hu"man is a modern jewish term that became popularized after WW2. A "hu"man is not a man. Just as the word "hue" implies, it's a simalcrum. A mix of our DNA with demonic DNA. An onion that's half rotted is a rotten onion. When a fruit tree bears half bad fruit, the tree is hewn down and cast into the fire (Matthew 7:15-20). Race mixing is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly why jews encourage it so much.
Obviously. The whole concept of "Abrahamic religion" is modern jewish nonsense. Jews don't come from Abraham, they come from Esau race mixing with non-White Canaanites. Jesus specifically says this in John 8:39-47, and they admit it themselves as I proved to you using their own sources. They only started calling themselves Israelites and Hebrews in 1860, then created the scofield "'bible" which lead to all the modern boomerism today like "jews are God's chosen people" and "God blesses those who bless israel," and eventually getting their modern synagogue of satan state of israel. Arabs come from Ishmael doing the same, and jews wrote the quran. Without jews, islam wouldn't exist. They're just the broom of jews to slaughter Whites. It's not everyone vs. the jew, it's Whites vs. everyone especially the jew.
>Surely no human survived the flood, and Noah & co restarted it all? How did we end up with nigs, poos, and chinese (just to name a few)?
The flood was local, not worldwide, and it didn't get rid of all the non-Whites. Enoch goes in depth on this. Giants survived and survive even to this day as well. Also, the very word "hu"man is a modern jewish term that became popularized after WW2. A "hu"man is not a man. Just as the word "hue" implies, it's a simalcrum. A mix of our DNA with demonic DNA. An onion that's half rotted is a rotten onion. When a fruit tree bears half bad fruit, the tree is hewn down and cast into the fire (Matthew 7:15-20). Race mixing is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly why jews encourage it so much.
Biblical love is defined in the masculine sense of its application toward his children.
> Proverbs 3:11-12 (KJV) My son, despise not the **chastening** of the LORD; neither be weary of his **correction:** For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
> 2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV) For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
> Hebrews 12:6-8 (KJV) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
- Webster's Dictionary 1828 definition of **discipline**
> https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Discipline
Our enemies are to be loved in this manner, through discipline, making disciples of them under the authority given to those who follow Christ.
The **love** talked about in (((NIV Bibles))) of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 was written as **charity** in the KJV.
The difference is 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is talking about dealing with the less fortunate of communities in which Christians lived with charity, not their enemies.
We are taught to love our enemies similar to how a father disciplines a son, with the rod. Just as you wouldn't spare the rod and spoil your child, you would treat your enemies as low IQ children if that's how they act.
- Strongly recommend buying a physical copy of the 1828 Webster's Dictionary
> Proverbs 3:11-12 (KJV) My son, despise not the **chastening** of the LORD; neither be weary of his **correction:** For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
> 2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV) For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
> Hebrews 12:6-8 (KJV) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
- Webster's Dictionary 1828 definition of **discipline**
> https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Discipline
Our enemies are to be loved in this manner, through discipline, making disciples of them under the authority given to those who follow Christ.
The **love** talked about in (((NIV Bibles))) of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 was written as **charity** in the KJV.
The difference is 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is talking about dealing with the less fortunate of communities in which Christians lived with charity, not their enemies.
We are taught to love our enemies similar to how a father disciplines a son, with the rod. Just as you wouldn't spare the rod and spoil your child, you would treat your enemies as low IQ children if that's how they act.
- Strongly recommend buying a physical copy of the 1828 Webster's Dictionary
Toast message
being a weak bitch in the face of your enemies will earn you a place in hell.
Forgiveness comes *after* the threat is removed.
"Oh, you raped and killed my daughter? No worry, it's already forgiven."