Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lewis, Dec 6, 2011.
Quoted for wisdom and truth!!
Look at what these 2 kids did to this homeless man in NJ 2 days ago, well the news people caught wind of it 2 days ago I mean, across the bridge from me in New Jersey, and they had the nerve to tape it. The kid with the camera is being charged too. Kids can be cruel this poor man did nothing to these kids. These kids need their tails kicked. And this not even the full length video, I saw a longer version on TV, the people are outraged and the cops are throwing the book at them and the desk.
BELMAR, N.J. - December 19, 2011 (WPVI) -- A homeless man who was beaten and bloodied in a videotaped attack that was posted on YouTube has received an outpouring of support in his New Jersey shore community, a development that has renewed the spirits of some of those who were outraged by the violence.
By Tuesday, a Facebook page was set up to connect those who wanted to assist David Ivins, and police were coordinating with a nonprofit group to accept donations.
The 50-year-old Ivins, with his thick beard and layers of clothes, was a familiar sight in Wall, Belmar and Lake Como. He could often be seen riding his bike around the Monmouth County towns and inside their bars.
He told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he was preparing to move into a donated hotel room and that he wanted to take advantage of the help he's getting.
"I'm going to sober up," he said as he spoke to a reporter in the lobby of the Belmar Police station. He had just had a meal of spaghetti and salad, and his backpack and two shopping bags were bulging with other food he'd been given.
Ivins doesn't remember what day the attack happened. Police, judging by a YouTube time stamp, say it was more than a week ago.
In the video, a young man tells the camera, "About to go beat up this bum." Then it shows him punching and kicking Ivins in the face, bloodying his nose, before telling him, "Merry Christmas." The cameraman, heard but not seen in the video, laughs along with the attacker.
Twenty-year-old Taylor Giresi, of Lake Como, was charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit assault, robbery and theft. He was jailed Tuesday on bail of $111,000.
Police say the 17-year-old cameraman, whose name has not been released, will be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and theft. He's already charged with conspiracy and has been released to the custody of his parents.
Ivins said he's only faced an attack like the one on YouTube - it has since been removed - once before, about 2Â½ years ago.
As Ivins spoke Tuesday, he rubbed his chest where he was still sore from the most recent beating. He said his back was also aching.
"I probably would have been KO'd and dead if I was drunker," he lamented.
Ivins says he's been homeless on and off for 18 years. Some locals say they believe it has been even longer than that.
He said he's had a number of jobs, including construction work, working on the floor of a clothing factory, cleaning out toilets in boardwalk public restrooms, working for a die-cast company and working in a pizzeria. But he says injuries and minor legal charges like trespassing and alcohol have always kept him from sticking around.
Ivins said he has found places to keep him out of the elements at least. He said that before moving to the hotel, he would need to swing by a garage where he has been staying to pick up a couple of pairs of shoes and a tool set he's stowed there.
He said he had scrounged money to keep his radio in batteries. And for food, sometimes he'd eat sandwiches from a convenience store garbage bin.
Crystal Gil, who works at Smoker's Paradise in Lake Como, said Ivin always seemed harmless when she saw him on the street - though you wanted to steer clear if he was in a bad mood.
She was so upset about his attack that she decided to collect money to help him at the smoke shop - and posted her intentions on Facebook.
She's been heartened as she's followed messages on the social networking site from people pledging a new bicycle for Ivins, along with other donations.
"Poor guy," she said. "He didn't do no harm to nobody."
Wall Police Lt. Walter Pomphrey said the department could tell by the volume of calls it received that people were deeply troubled that someone could be so hurtful to one of their own.
"Anyone has to feel some sympathy for the guy," he said.
He said the relief group Wall Helps Its People had a fund for monetary donations that will be used to provide services for Ivins.
This fundamentally begs the question.
The reason is this: It can be coherently argued that it is possible that the pacifist approach will fundamentally change the world and therefore obviate the need for these "big guns" in first place. In other words, the need for the "big guns" lies in the unwillingness of the human race to forsake the "tit for tat" of teh cycle of violence that mars human history. You beg the question by presuming that if the pacifist role is broadly adopted, evil will stomp the world under its boot.
Apparently, Jesus thought otherwise, teaching us to respond to evil not with guns-ablazin', but with love and forgiveness. Seems crazy and suicidal doesn't it.
Well, such is the nature of the Kingdom of God.
From Greg Boyd, on the matter of "not resisting evil" (I have added emphasis) in the context of the question of defending loved ones (I added bold):
It helps somewhat to remember that the word Jesus uses for â€œresistâ€ (antistenai) doesnâ€™t imply passively allowing something to take place. It rather connotes resisting a forceful action with a similar forceful action. Jesus is thus forbidding responding to violent action with similar violent action. Heâ€™s teaching us not to take on the violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. Heâ€™s teaching us to respond to evil in a way that is consistent with loving them. But heâ€™s not by any means saying do nothing.
I think there is a fundamental misconception in your position Drew.
You are insisting on imposing Christian virtues and practices on a political society.
Christianity - New Testament Christianity that is - has never been, and until the kingdom comes, will never be a political entity.
It has been forced into political moulds, and is nominally a 'state religion' - but in fact it has never been intended to be a political entity.
Jesus said, didn't He, that 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' Joh 18:36
Therefore, insisting that non-retaliation is the way to go for a society, is making a fatal mistake, which has resulted in the travesties of injustice we are beholding.
Politics and religion do not mix, as the passage above-quoted shows extremely clearly. The attempt to produce a political system which drags Christianity in by the heels, and seeks to omit God at every turn while wanting the benefits godliness creates, is a colossal blunder.
Accepting injustice is an individual Christian's duty. Accepting injustice by a society, is a recipe for the sort of disasters we are talking about on this thread.
The only time Christianity will ever be societalised, will be when the kingdom comes - and it's coming will be accompanied by severe violence to the evildoers and opponents of God and His Christ. If you doubt this, read
And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
the problem is greed drew, surely the apostles would have done it.
you cant assume that somehow the guy will just say oh jesus i love after he beats you to a pulp and granted an offer to repent.
sorry it wont work, drew.
so the united states should have let the shoah occur?
bonhoffer et all shouldnt have hid the jews? they should have just turned them in when they saw them and gave no resistance to the germans?
Jesus preached the Kingdom was at hand while the land He was living in was under the heavy rule, enslavedto, of the Romans. He preached the Kingdom was at hand knowing the violence of the Cross was to come. The only definition of His Kingdom i have read in Scripture is
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
This Biblical definition/description says nothing about mans government.
nope and the problem for drew as so long as theres a sinner alive there will be violence of some sort.
he doesnt believe in denying voting rights or office to the sinners. so greed will prevail. of course christians are just as bad.
wait this reminds me.
a pacifist man who never ever spoke out to his wife when she verbally abused him. Got mad one day and took out the front and back door of my church and had then entire sheriffs office deputies at that location with swat looking for him..
all because he didnt speak up.:bigfrown
Did anybody see this ? Tell me something if this man could have defended himself wouldn't he have had every right ?
i do and if i had a knife and killed one of them, they got what was coming for attacking him without provacation.
thought not legal imho do that with a knife but i cant say he wouldnt have that right.
We disagree on an incredibly important point - I believe the kingdom is already here. And I think the Biblical case for this is absolutely overwhelming.
I believe you, like many, are the victim of a bad translation of this famous passage. Note this from John 18:
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".
As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:
Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.
The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from” (above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:
“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)”
When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world” reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.
Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.
question for drew, and its not a bad translation drew.
your interpretation of it is.
was in the days of the torah and eye for eye taken literally?
if so show me by such wording and oral traditions.
i really dont think any christian theocracy will work. america was one till the 1789 convention.
it didnt work then and it aint going to work. simply punishing a man for worshipping false gods isnt going to work and they did do that in some of the colonies and alot more.
I'm afraid that all this hullabaloo about the NET translation is immaterial for 7 good reasons:
1 Most other translations say something like the AV:
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. ASV
36 Jesus said in answer, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom was of this world, my disciples would have made a good fight to keep me out of the hands of the Jews: but my kingdom is not here. BBE
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.ERV
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
So nuts to the NET.
2 The disciples didn't think it had come either:
Acts 1.6 Â¶ They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
3 Jesus didn't either:
Acts 1.7 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority.
Mt 6.10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
4 The Revelation doesn't either:
15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there followed great voices in heaven, and they said, The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ: and he shall reign for ever and ever.
5 Daniel doesn't either:
2.44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
6 Nor does David:
See Pss 2,72,37 as examples.
Therefore, until the kingdom comes, the society cannot be regarded as being Christian.
7 So does the rest of the OT
Therefore it is inappropriate to attempt to place Christ's commandments to |His disciples, on to a godless society.
Lets please confine the discussion to the topic at hand and not make this a topic on the Kingdom of God.
deleted own post.
Separate names with a comma.