Haven't read the book, and I'm probably not going to. People have a right to write inflammatory, controversial, offensive comics. But they will usually get blow back from the offended parties, and hopefully they are grown ups who expect that. If I drew an offensive image of Mohammed, I might start a fire larger than I could control, so I won't be doing that any time soon. Doubt that kind of thing will happen here, but Murphy will likely not be getting any rent money from me.
Here's two cents: Christians are forbidden by Christ Himself to take up weapons against anyone, and even if someone falls into the category of "enemy", we are taught to love and pray for that person. A Christian by definition is someone who follows Christ's teachings. So an individual employing violence, hate, or abuse towards another human being is by definition not a Christian, regardless of what they call themselves.
So an individual employing violence, hate, or abuse towards another human being is by definition not a Christian, regardless of what they call themselves.
I wasn't hating at all, just stating my point of view
Christians are forbidden to take up arms against anyone? Could you post that scripture passage please?
Mt 5:44 "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Mt. 5:39 "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." Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." And Paul: Romans 12:18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads. 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good ." 2 Co 10:4 "The weapons with which we fight are not human weapons, but are mighty for God in overthrowing strong fortresses."
There are more, I'm sure; a more difficult task would be to locate a passage in which Christ recommends a person taking up violent arms against another person, particularly because that person has insulted us via ridicule.
And born agains are probably using the filter on Jesus
So Jesus and Moses are going to have a feud at some point. The big problem that kicked me out of Catholicism was the disparity of teachings between the conservatives and the liberals.... I mean the old testament and the new testament.
Christians are forbidden to take up arms against anyone? Could you post that scripture passage please?
Mt 5:44 "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Mt. 5:39 "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." Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." And Paul: Romans 12:18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads. 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good ." 2 Co 10:4 "The weapons with which we fight are not human weapons, but are mighty for God in overthrowing strong fortresses."
There are more, I'm sure; a more difficult task would be to locate a passage in which Christ recommends a person taking up violent arms against another person, particularly because that person has insulted us via ridicule.
Mt. 5:44 Nice try but but doesn't say you are forbidden taking up arms. Mt. 5:39 Taken out of context. Like an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Often the most misunderstood biblical quote. Jesus is't talking about the 'physical'. Mt 26:52 Again, taken out of context. And Paul...all completely taken out of context.
Here's some proper context for you....
When the centurion approached Jesus the ask what he should do...jesus didn't tell him to stop being a centurion and throw down his arms.
Jesus made a whip out of cords and got rid of the money changers in the temple. John 2:15 'So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.' Not bad for 'turning the other cheek'.
Matt 10:35 'For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--' again... gentle jesus meek and mild...I dont think so.
Matt 7:11 'If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!' Jesus called the people listening to him ...evil
Again the last two can be taken completely out of context...which is exactly what you have done with yer quotes.
I just think that Jesus preached about how to act in certain ways. There are proper reactions for each case. For example, planes flying into your towers, I believe Jesus is okay with proper retaliation. But in this case, I am 100% sure, Jesus would be more inclined to pray for the person and try to persuade them to follow Him. What is in the Bible takes place due to a certain set of circumstances. Just throwing out Bible verses to try to prove a point does not make any sense unless there is proper backing. In the case of Punk Rock Jesus I think praying that Sean Murphy can come toward the light is the most appropriate and a verse that emphasizes God's love is most important. Speaking of which, looky what I have here.........
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35-39).
In context, I think it's pretty clear that the difference between the eye for an eye in the Old Testament and turn the other cheek in the New is that an eye for an eye was spoken to a nation and turn the other cheek was spoken to individuals.
Or in other words, to extremely dumb it down, Jesus would be fine with the death penalty instituted by authorities after a fair trial, but not the Punisher.
When the centurion approached Jesus the ask what he should do...jesus didn't tell him to stop being a centurion and throw down his arms.
Jesus made a whip out of cords and got rid of the money changers in the temple. John 2:15 'So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.' Not bad for 'turning the other cheek'.
Matt 10:35 'For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--' again... gentle jesus meek and mild...I dont think so.
Matt 7:11 'If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!' Jesus called the people listening to him ...evil
Again the last two can be taken completely out of context...which is exactly what you have done with yer quotes.
If you have a way to dismiss the verses I quoted and altogether exempt Christians from them by putting them in "proper" context, I'd be interested to hear that explained. Christ and the Apostles appealed to the entirety of the Septuagint and more for context. So while I understand that there is some nuance to consider in the scriptures I cited, I hardly think there's so much nuance that one can escape Christ's expectation of non-violence for the Christian.
Now, as to context:
Re: The Centurion The Bible recognizes fully a separation of Church (or "The Kingdom of God") and State, and Christ's teachings are to the individual disciple, not the military or the police. Even if you take killing/violence out of it, when a person breaks the law, lawful and proper authorities may take that individual and lock him in a cell for years at a time. Even those who would do away with the death penalty understand that this is a necessity at times. But if you as an individual saw someone breaking the law and locked them up for a few years in your basement, you would be an immoral monster. The State may do things that the individual may not, including killing a person who is fleeing. The Centurion was a proper State figure. That is not to suggest that the State is always correct, only that even the Bible recognizes that the most committed pacifists usually live in town protected by armed police.
Re: John 2:15 (Jesus and the money changers) Jesus (if the Bible is to be believed, which I do) is God (we could debate that point forever, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Christians are persuaded of that fact based on the Bible). As God, He can rightfully exact any judgment He pleases ("Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.") You'll find no example of any disciple or apostle of Christ (i.e., ordinary humans) taking any such measure. They are not God.
Re: Matt. 10:35 (turning against father and mother, etc.) Jesus also said that in a sense we must "hate" our own parents/family if we are to show appropriate preference for following Him over any other allegiances. Obviously we are not to literally hate our family. It's a form of hyperbole by way of contrast (the word "hate" as applied to Esau is a similar case). Following Christ is divisive, even among families. He grants us internal peace, and we are to be peacemakers, but in general most cultures have little tolerance for the explicit teachings of Christ or those who faithfully hold to them, which is a demonstrable fact. Sometimes those who have little use for the teachings of Jesus are so-called "Christians" who want to go on a bloody Crusade, or who want to burn and butcher "heretics".
Re: Jesus calling people evil. That's the doctrine of the Fall. All people are separated from God by sin. It's a cornerstone of Christian teaching and together with the doctrine of the holiness of God is the only thing that makes any sense of the Old and New Testaments (law versus grace, purpose and necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice, etc.)
In context, I think it's pretty clear that the difference between the eye for an eye in the Old Testament and turn the other cheek in the New is that an eye for an eye was spoken to a nation and turn the other cheek was spoken to individuals.
Or in other words, to extremely dumb it down, Jesus would be fine with the death penalty instituted by authorities after a fair trial, but not the Punisher.
Extra points to Kyle for wrapping it back to comics at the end there.
So you're saying Jesus would be down with Judge Dredd?
In context, I think it's pretty clear that the difference between the eye for an eye in the Old Testament and turn the other cheek in the New is that an eye for an eye was spoken to a nation and turn the other cheek was spoken to individuals.
Or in other words, to extremely dumb it down, Jesus would be fine with the death penalty instituted by authorities after a fair trial, but not the Punisher.
Extra points to Kyle for wrapping it back to comics at the end there.
So you're saying Jesus would be down with Judge Dredd?
In context, I think it's pretty clear that the difference between the eye for an eye in the Old Testament and turn the other cheek in the New is that an eye for an eye was spoken to a nation and turn the other cheek was spoken to individuals.
Or in other words, to extremely dumb it down, Jesus would be fine with the death penalty instituted by authorities after a fair trial, but not the Punisher.
Extra points to Kyle for wrapping it back to comics at the end there.
So you're saying Jesus would be down with Judge Dredd?
I guess so, yeah. Maybe not the Sylvester Stallone version though. But what about the rest of super heroes/masked vigilantes in general? I'm not sure if the Old Testament Israel really had a formal police force, so a non-lethal citizen's arrest would probably be fine.
I went to an online Bible and did a search for the word "Batman" and found nothing, so I can't say for sure.
When the centurion approached Jesus the ask what he should do...jesus didn't tell him to stop being a centurion and throw down his arms.
Jesus made a whip out of cords and got rid of the money changers in the temple. John 2:15 'So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.' Not bad for 'turning the other cheek'.
Matt 10:35 'For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--' again... gentle jesus meek and mild...I dont think so.
Matt 7:11 'If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!' Jesus called the people listening to him ...evil
Again the last two can be taken completely out of context...which is exactly what you have done with yer quotes.
If you have a way to dismiss the verses I quoted and altogether exempt Christians from them by putting them in "proper" context, I'd be interested to hear that explained. Christ and the Apostles appealed to the entirety of the Septuagint and more for context. So while I understand that there is some nuance to consider in the scriptures I cited, I hardly think there's so much nuance that one can escape Christ's expectation of non-violence for the Christian.
Now, as to context:
Re: The Centurion The Bible recognizes fully a separation of Church (or "The Kingdom of God") and State, and Christ's teachings are to the individual disciple, not the military or the police. Even if you take killing/violence out of it, when a person breaks the law, lawful and proper authorities may take that individual and lock him in a cell for years at a time. Even those who would do away with the death penalty understand that this is a necessity at times. But if you as an individual saw someone breaking the law and locked them up for a few years in your basement, you would be an immoral monster. The State may do things that the individual may not, including killing a person who is fleeing. The Centurion was a proper State figure. That is not to suggest that the State is always correct, only that even the Bible recognizes that the most committed pacifists usually live in town protected by armed police.
Re: John 2:15 (Jesus and the money changers) Jesus (if the Bible is to be believed, which I do) is God (we could debate that point forever, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Christians are persuaded of that fact based on the Bible). As God, He can rightfully exact any judgment He pleases ("Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.") You'll find no example of any disciple or apostle of Christ (i.e., ordinary humans) taking any such measure. They are not God.
Re: Matt. 10:35 (turning against father and mother, etc.) Jesus also said that in a sense we must "hate" our own parents/family if we are to show appropriate preference for following Him over any other allegiances. Obviously we are not to literally hate our family. It's a form of hyperbole by way of contrast (the word "hate" as applied to Esau is a similar case). Following Christ is divisive, even among families. He grants us internal peace, and we are to be peacemakers, but in general most cultures have little tolerance for the explicit teachings of Christ or those who faithfully hold to them, which is a demonstrable fact. Sometimes those who have little use for the teachings of Jesus are so-called "Christians" who want to go on a bloody Crusade, or who want to burn and butcher "heretics".
Re: Jesus calling people evil. That's the doctrine of the Fall. All people are separated from God by sin. It's a cornerstone of Christian teaching and together with the doctrine of the holiness of God is the only thing that makes any sense of the Old and New Testaments (law versus grace, purpose and necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice, etc.)
Again...you never answered the question. Where does it say that christians are forbidden to take up arms? It simply doesn't. And thanks for saying and proven my last two points out of context...they were supposed to be. Also, you need to read The Bible again. The bible doesnt like seperation of church and state...thats why the jews in the old testament had a theocracy. A theocracy doesnt seperate church from state. It's all well to say christians should be non-Violent while its founder is allowed physically whip people. It's hypocrisy. Its also hypocrisy to teach non-violence but on judgement you're gonna have people burn forever. We may be reading from the same book but your god is not my God.
Again...you never answered the question. Where does it say that christians are forbidden to take up arms? It simply doesn't. And thanks for saying and proven my last two points out of context...they were supposed to be. Also, you need to read The Bible again. The bible doesnt like seperation of church and state...thats why the jews in the old testament had a theocracy. A theocracy doesnt seperate church from state. It's all well to say christians should be non-Violent while its founder is allowed physically whip people. It's hypocrisy. Its also hypocrisy to teach non-violence but on judgement you're gonna have people burn forever. We may be reading from the same book but your god is not my God.
I did answer the question. You just didn't accept (or refute, I might add) my answer. I gave you 5 verses that explicitly call Christians to non-violence and peace, and if you think those verses don't mean what they say, I would be genuinely interested to hear why.
Re: "The bible doesnt like seperation of church and state...thats why the jews in the old testament had a theocracy."
Yes, they did. In fact, God was their literal king until they asked for a human king. But we are not Jews and we are not living under the old covenant, so Israel is not our model. Christ is, and he taught to Jews living under the rule of Rome. Consequently, he and the apostles repeatedly differentiate between Christ's spiritual kingdom and the secular State ("My Kingdom is not of this world", "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's", etc.).
Re: "It's all well to say christians should be non-Violent while its founder is allowed physically whip people. It's hypocrisy." I think you've confused a Christian boundary about who is in a position to use force with a condemnation of force. The Bible never says that force, or punishment, or judgment, or even violence is bad. It's just says that they are not the tools by which a Christian can accomplish the will of God. This post was initially about how Christians might respond to a blasphemous work of fiction. I think the Bible is clear that I, as a Christian, am not to become violent in response, and that God will sort it out.
Re: "Its also hypocrisy to teach non-violence but on judgement you're gonna have people burn forever." You'll have to take all that up with God. I happen to believe what the Bible says about those things, but I make it a point not to say that this or that person is going to hell. It's a somber subject it's not my call. But given how easy the Bible appears to make it to be reconciled to God, you pretty much have to insist on hell to go there.
Re: "We may be reading from the same book but your god is not my God" Can't say, but that would explain the disconnect.
No interest in arguing with you, Flintlockjaw, but I do enjoy a healthy debate.
You know, the cool thing about the bible is at it asks questions and answers questions. The bad thing is most people that reference the bible word for word miss the meaning. It is a guide book. Not precisely written laws. If you want it to be law you need to find the original texts and translate it yourself. Also, you never see Jews using their biblical texts in this way. They argue about specific words or the meaning of what is written.
And isn't not judging others a tenent of Christianity? Judge not lest he be judged? Of course, this would make bible thumpers boring. And batman and
Yeah, my intention was not to get into a whole thing about the Bible, etc. I just think it's important for Christians to denounce violence and to assert the rights of others we disagree with in the marketplace of ideas. I do not like books that ridicule or demean my faith, but if I can silence them, they may one day silence me. We can debate things, or vote with our dollars, and that has to be our means of influence.
One of my frustrations with moderate religious communities is that I feel they are often not visible enough in their utter denunciation of violence and their commitment to freedom of speech, thought, etc. As a Christian I want to be unequivocal on those matters.
Yeah, my intention was not to get into a whole thing about the Bible, etc. I just think it's important for Christians to denounce violence and to assert the rights of others we disagree with in the marketplace of ideas. I do not like books that ridicule or demean my faith, but if I can silence them, they may one day silence me. We can debate things, or vote with our dollars, and that has to be our means of influence.
One of my frustrations with moderate religious communities is that I feel they are often not visible enough in their utter denunciation of violence and their commitment to freedom of speech, thought, etc. As a Christian I want to be unequivocal on those matters.
Another way of looking at the 'Punk Rock Jesus' thing is to do what Marcus Morris did in the UK.
During and after WWII, british kids were getting their hands on US comics, mainly horror and crime comics and he was concerned about it's effects. So, instead pf denouncing the material...he offered an alternative...The Eagle. The alternative sold in it's millions, gave the world a hero with christian values, Dan Dare and raised the quality of comic books far beyond what was being published in the US and the UK at that time.
Comments
Here's two cents: Christians are forbidden by Christ Himself to take up weapons against anyone, and even if someone falls into the category of "enemy", we are taught to love and pray for that person. A Christian by definition is someone who follows Christ's teachings. So an individual employing violence, hate, or abuse towards another human being is by definition not a Christian, regardless of what they call themselves.
Thank you. That was not my intention peeps, just so we all know
Mt. 5:39 "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."
Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
And Paul:
Romans 12:18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads. 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good ."
2 Co 10:4 "The weapons with which we fight are not human weapons, but are mighty for God in overthrowing strong fortresses."
There are more, I'm sure; a more difficult task would be to locate a passage in which Christ recommends a person taking up violent arms against another person, particularly because that person has insulted us via ridicule.
So Jesus and Moses are going to have a feud at some point. The big problem that kicked me out of Catholicism was the disparity of teachings between the conservatives and the liberals.... I mean the old testament and the new testament.
I just like saying that.
Testament
Oooooh!!!!
Mt. 5:39 Taken out of context. Like an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Often the most misunderstood biblical quote. Jesus is't talking about the 'physical'.
Mt 26:52 Again, taken out of context.
And Paul...all completely taken out of context.
Here's some proper context for you....
When the centurion approached Jesus the ask what he should do...jesus didn't tell him to stop being a centurion and throw down his arms.
Jesus made a whip out of cords and got rid of the money changers in the temple.
John 2:15 'So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.' Not bad for 'turning the other cheek'.
Matt 10:35 'For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--' again... gentle jesus meek and mild...I dont think so.
Matt 7:11 'If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!' Jesus called the people listening to him ...evil
Again the last two can be taken completely out of context...which is exactly what you have done with yer quotes.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35-39).
Or in other words, to extremely dumb it down, Jesus would be fine with the death penalty instituted by authorities after a fair trial, but not the Punisher.
Now, as to context:
Re: The Centurion
The Bible recognizes fully a separation of Church (or "The Kingdom of God") and State, and Christ's teachings are to the individual disciple, not the military or the police. Even if you take killing/violence out of it, when a person breaks the law, lawful and proper authorities may take that individual and lock him in a cell for years at a time. Even those who would do away with the death penalty understand that this is a necessity at times. But if you as an individual saw someone breaking the law and locked them up for a few years in your basement, you would be an immoral monster. The State may do things that the individual may not, including killing a person who is fleeing. The Centurion was a proper State figure. That is not to suggest that the State is always correct, only that even the Bible recognizes that the most committed pacifists usually live in town protected by armed police.
Re: John 2:15 (Jesus and the money changers)
Jesus (if the Bible is to be believed, which I do) is God (we could debate that point forever, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Christians are persuaded of that fact based on the Bible). As God, He can rightfully exact any judgment He pleases ("Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.") You'll find no example of any disciple or apostle of Christ (i.e., ordinary humans) taking any such measure. They are not God.
Re: Matt. 10:35 (turning against father and mother, etc.)
Jesus also said that in a sense we must "hate" our own parents/family if we are to show appropriate preference for following Him over any other allegiances. Obviously we are not to literally hate our family. It's a form of hyperbole by way of contrast (the word "hate" as applied to Esau is a similar case). Following Christ is divisive, even among families. He grants us internal peace, and we are to be peacemakers, but in general most cultures have little tolerance for the explicit teachings of Christ or those who faithfully hold to them, which is a demonstrable fact. Sometimes those who have little use for the teachings of Jesus are so-called "Christians" who want to go on a bloody Crusade, or who want to burn and butcher "heretics".
Re: Jesus calling people evil.
That's the doctrine of the Fall. All people are separated from God by sin. It's a cornerstone of Christian teaching and together with the doctrine of the holiness of God is the only thing that makes any sense of the Old and New Testaments (law versus grace, purpose and necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice, etc.)
So you're saying Jesus would be down with Judge Dredd?
I went to an online Bible and did a search for the word "Batman" and found nothing, so I can't say for sure.
Re: "The bible doesnt like seperation of church and state...thats why the jews in the old testament had a theocracy."
Yes, they did. In fact, God was their literal king until they asked for a human king. But we are not Jews and we are not living under the old covenant, so Israel is not our model. Christ is, and he taught to Jews living under the rule of Rome. Consequently, he and the apostles repeatedly differentiate between Christ's spiritual kingdom and the secular State ("My Kingdom is not of this world", "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's", etc.).
Re: "It's all well to say christians should be non-Violent while its founder is allowed physically whip people. It's hypocrisy."
I think you've confused a Christian boundary about who is in a position to use force with a condemnation of force. The Bible never says that force, or punishment, or judgment, or even violence is bad. It's just says that they are not the tools by which a Christian can accomplish the will of God. This post was initially about how Christians might respond to a blasphemous work of fiction. I think the Bible is clear that I, as a Christian, am not to become violent in response, and that God will sort it out.
Re: "Its also hypocrisy to teach non-violence but on judgement you're gonna have people burn forever."
You'll have to take all that up with God. I happen to believe what the Bible says about those things, but I make it a point not to say that this or that person is going to hell. It's a somber subject it's not my call. But given how easy the Bible appears to make it to be reconciled to God, you pretty much have to insist on hell to go there.
Re: "We may be reading from the same book but your god is not my God"
Can't say, but that would explain the disconnect.
No interest in arguing with you, Flintlockjaw, but I do enjoy a healthy debate.
It is a guide book. Not precisely written laws. If you want it to be law you need to find the original texts and translate it yourself.
Also, you never see Jews using their biblical texts in this way. They argue about specific words or the meaning of what is written.
And isn't not judging others a tenent of Christianity? Judge not lest he be judged?
Of course, this would make bible thumpers boring.
And batman and
One of my frustrations with moderate religious communities is that I feel they are often not visible enough in their utter denunciation of violence and their commitment to freedom of speech, thought, etc. As a Christian I want to be unequivocal on those matters.
During and after WWII, british kids were getting their hands on US comics, mainly horror and crime comics and he was concerned about it's effects. So, instead pf denouncing the material...he offered an alternative...The Eagle. The alternative sold in it's millions, gave the world a hero with christian values, Dan Dare and raised the quality of comic books far beyond what was being published in the US and the UK at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_(comic)
Except for more star trek movies and more nemesis the warlock written by pat mills and drawn by Kevin o'neill