This nugget from neo is not getting the attention it deserves.

We often hear Trump give “thinly veiled threats”, but if this is how he operates, given his low tolerance for even a minor disagreement, or challenge, we can bet violence will be at hand if he doesn’t get his way.

I would rather think not, but Trump doesn’t seem to be turning down his rhetoric. Of course, he doesn’t EXPLICITLY say so, but he hints enough that people (particularly the less stable of his supporters) eventually get the “message”.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

— Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D, IL), June 13, 2008

Exodus 22:2: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”

…if you care to delve into a rational and well-reasoned biblical response to violence, try Dr. Joel McDurmon’s a biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to Bear Arms.

Dr. McDurmon provides links to some of his other papers along the same vein that worth reading.

…if you don’t have time to read Durmon’s works, basically he provides a scriptural basis for reasons that in both the Old and New Testament’s there’s an inherent spiritual responsibility for Christians to meet violence with a rational [violent] response to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbor.

As for a suggestion the messiah was a pacifist: Jesus took a whip to the moneylenders, and drove them out of the Temple their greed defiled.

The Messiah wasn’t averse to meeting evil with violence (as the Canaanites – and many others who ended badly – could equally attest in their encounters with the manifestation of triune G_d they encountered).

Oh. And He had a bit to say about weaponry, too.

Luke 22:35-38 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Your reasoning is solid, neo.

I suspect that back when the Law was originally given, that an actual eye could have been demanded. Given that the Law was basically asking the aggrieved to forego taking justice into their own hands, there likely would have been situations in which the injured party felt that leniancy wasn’t enough (for instance, if the injury was due to gross negligence; or if the injured party suspected that the scope of the injury had been intentional). Later on, though, as people grew used to the idea of the authorities handling the punishment, the call for that sort of thing likely would have receeded.

Oldflyer –

In response to your last sentence, I would say no. We’re advised to turn the other cheek. I.E. when someone gives reason for offense, show humility instead of pride. But we’re not advised to be supine in the face of wickedness and evil. Remember that on one occasion, the Savior even fashioned himself a whip, and attacked people with it.

He must be following the inspiration of the One-derboy, who wrote in one of his books that the Reverend White was the “greatest spiritual influence in my life,” and then when it came out that the Reverend was a pathological anti-Semite and anti-American, said he never heard any of his sermons.