It's also ignoring the other half of the parable - 'as thyself'.
You expect your neighbor to comport themselves as a good, faithful Christian of virtue, acting in good faith. Because you expect the same of yourself. Just as you expect others to police you and guide you back if you should be lead astray.
I'm beginning to think that the most evil thing one can do in an argument or philosophy is strip them of context. Scripture, history, science - you can twist and deform anything and everything to support even the most gruesome of acts if you strip it of context and let them stand alone, without circumstance.
That said, in reply to Op, I'd have to say 'turn the other cheek' is right up there, neck and neck, as the most misused bible verse.
Not only that, but if one neighbor A seeks to harm neighbor B and you do nothing to protect them, then you're not loving neighbor B. Sometimes love means doing whatever is necessary to protect someone.
Also, love does not require approval or acceptance or "being nice". Sometimes the best thing you can do for someone is oppose them, with violence if necessary. If you have a friend who is drunk out of his mind and about to hurt someone else, then fighting him is the right thing to do, even if you have to hurt him in the process.
The "Christianity" espoused by the mother in the video is just a manifestation of her natural female instinct to nurture and avoid conflict. She's just interpreting her own feelings as being righteous and justifying it by cherry-picking scripture when in reality it's completely false and just a manifestation of her own personality. I'll just say, there's a reason why the Bible says women shouldn't teach spiritual matters.
Jesus flipped over the tables of the money lenders in the temple.
Thus literally bankrupting them. Bankrupt comes from the Italian phrase banca rotta "broken table"-- in the old days, when a banker/moneylender was corrupt or went broke, the town authorities would walk up to their table and physically break it.
Which is why we're hated. Having standards and holding yourself and others to them is hateful to those who want to wallow in their own filth and be loved for it.
And it's not like we can perfectly achieve those standards anyway. The point is that we keep moving forward and grow as people, even if we keep falling short on the way.
Many of our enlightenment values are a continuation of Christianity and what came before. If the bible was too easy to interpret, it would lack depth or wouldn't persist across millennia. I don't agree with the parts that seem to be authoritarian social engineering, but I've learned to be very dismissive of malicious caricatures of the religion. Most of the bible isn't up to flimsy, wildly divergent interpretation.
It's been abused to pacify resistance from the Christians against leftist infiltration.
Its love thy NEIGHBOUR, not 'love thy stranger that you don't know and demands you pay them respect for existing'
It's also ignoring the other half of the parable - 'as thyself'.
You expect your neighbor to comport themselves as a good, faithful Christian of virtue, acting in good faith. Because you expect the same of yourself. Just as you expect others to police you and guide you back if you should be lead astray.
I'm beginning to think that the most evil thing one can do in an argument or philosophy is strip them of context. Scripture, history, science - you can twist and deform anything and everything to support even the most gruesome of acts if you strip it of context and let them stand alone, without circumstance.
That said, in reply to Op, I'd have to say 'turn the other cheek' is right up there, neck and neck, as the most misused bible verse.
It's literally calling us to hold our neighbors to higher standards than others
Not only that, but if one neighbor A seeks to harm neighbor B and you do nothing to protect them, then you're not loving neighbor B. Sometimes love means doing whatever is necessary to protect someone.
Also, love does not require approval or acceptance or "being nice". Sometimes the best thing you can do for someone is oppose them, with violence if necessary. If you have a friend who is drunk out of his mind and about to hurt someone else, then fighting him is the right thing to do, even if you have to hurt him in the process.
The "Christianity" espoused by the mother in the video is just a manifestation of her natural female instinct to nurture and avoid conflict. She's just interpreting her own feelings as being righteous and justifying it by cherry-picking scripture when in reality it's completely false and just a manifestation of her own personality. I'll just say, there's a reason why the Bible says women shouldn't teach spiritual matters.
Thus literally bankrupting them. Bankrupt comes from the Italian phrase banca rotta "broken table"-- in the old days, when a banker/moneylender was corrupt or went broke, the town authorities would walk up to their table and physically break it.
Hell, Jesus occupied the temple with armed followers. Jesus was more of an insurrectionist than the Jan 6'ers.
I'm not sure what you mean "easily manipulated prinicipals" real Christians have pretty rigid principals
Which is why we're hated. Having standards and holding yourself and others to them is hateful to those who want to wallow in their own filth and be loved for it.
And it's not like we can perfectly achieve those standards anyway. The point is that we keep moving forward and grow as people, even if we keep falling short on the way.
Many of our enlightenment values are a continuation of Christianity and what came before. If the bible was too easy to interpret, it would lack depth or wouldn't persist across millennia. I don't agree with the parts that seem to be authoritarian social engineering, but I've learned to be very dismissive of malicious caricatures of the religion. Most of the bible isn't up to flimsy, wildly divergent interpretation.